Telstra outages and service status in Burwood, Victoria

Problems in the last 24 hours in Burwood, Victoria

The chart below shows the number of Telstra reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Burwood, Victoria and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

Live Outage Map Near Burwood, Victoria

The most recent Telstra outage reports came from the following cities: Glen Iris.

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Glen Iris	Phone	2 months ago

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Telstra Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Brett Cousins (@BrettWCousins) reported 2 minutes ago

  @Telstra Thanks for following up . I’m surprised this is news to Telstra. It’s well-known that Telstra just doesn’t just service Elwood. Most cafes offer wifi because everyone knows how poor telstra is. Been that way for a decade.

• 
  Kelly (@Kelly26552573) reported 3 minutes ago

  @Candour100 @blu_boys @Optus Yeah my husband had to switch to the Telstra network because of remote work. Boost was his choice.

• 
  Lombok (@Phildecynic) reported 4 minutes ago

  Telstra chief executive Vicki Brady took home $6.8 million last year – an 11 per cent increase, despite a fall in revenue at Australia’s largest telecommunications company in the year leading up to its disastrous nationwide outage last month. (AFR)

• 
  Shark (@SharkerOCE) reported 7 minutes ago

  @telstra fix ur ******* internet

• 
  anthony, underclass prole cat, edwards (@anthony45052793) reported 8 minutes ago

  @MichaelRuyg i had to get starlink service for power outages to maintain some ability to contact emergency services if needed. i have backup power. mad not to in a bushfire and flood prone area, sadly nbn co, optus, vodafone and telstra are clearly incompetent.

• 
  Jilly (@MssJilly) reported 11 minutes ago

  @SistaRuthDOPD They use the Telstra platform. Never heard of it doing that, but calls are answered based on the key words you use when it asks you what you’re calling about. Also offers ‘place in queue’, calling you back when your phone no reaches #1 in the queue, which is really worth doing.

• 
  Top Stock Alerts (@TopStockAlerts1) reported 11 minutes ago

  Citi lowered its price target for Telstra Group to A$5.25 from A$5.50, a 5% cut, following a modest reduction in its earnings forecasts. The broker maintained its Neutral rating, saying the Australian telecom operator remains on track to achieve its FY2027 targets and longer-term FY2030 objectives. Telstra announced a A$1 billion share buyback and reported a marginal increase in annual profit on Thursday. Citi expects mobile service revenue growth to accelerate to around 5% in FY2027, supported by higher average revenue per postpaid user. The broker also sees potential earnings upside from stronger cost discipline, although postpaid subscriber numbers continue to decline. Citi reduced its FY2027 post-lease EBITDA forecast by up to 1% and basic net profit estimates by up to 2%. Despite the revisions, the firm continues to view Telstra's operating outlook as broadly consistent with management's targets. $C

• 
  Brent Hodgson (@BrentHodgson) reported 16 minutes ago

  @DHughesy No. Only an idiot would agree - because they'd be wrong. 1. It's not worth "over $300 billion". The $64 billion dollar investment is worth $269 billion 2. If you're using the "over 300 billion" figure ($337.2 billion) that figure means your "no future Fed Govt put one cent into it" bit is incorrect because this figure includes MULTIPLE additional multi-billion dollar funds added to the Future Fund's management portfolio. 3. The future fund wasn't built on some kind of free money windfall... The $64 billion invested came primarily from the Telstra sale. The Telstra sale meant the copper network was privatised, leading to Telstra putting shareholders first in refusing to bid on optic fibre rollouts. This meant the government has so far spent around $64 billion ($70bn by the end of the decade) to re-create Telstra's infrastructure under NBN Co. Meanwhile Telstra has paid $65-80bn in dividends since privatisation moved those dividends from public to private hands. So for every $1 we gained from the Telstra sale, we missed another $1 in dividends and spent another $1 in replacing the infrastructure we sold. Had a publicly-owned Telstra built the NBN out of dividends, and the government raised $64bn in debt to invest in a Future Fund, the books would look exactly the same as they do today. You've been dazzled by accounting tricks - following a magician's misdirection, and calling it "magic". 4. "negating the trillion plus debts... to some degree" is bullshit... It was created to cover DECADES worth of unpaid public service and military retirement benefits. Those debts amount to $322 billion, to be paid out of (currently) $269 billion in funds - leaving a $53 billion dollar black hole. Had the money been paid to super in a timely fashion (rather than the Future Fund being set up to cover unpaid pension debts), that $322 billion in benefits would be sitting in private super accounts right now. Again, you're dazzled by an accountant's magic tricks. Not free money - not "negating debts" - just a big government-owned super fund. "Can we all agree it was amazing when the magician sawed that woman in half! He should be a surgeon!"

• 
  Lucy Graham (@montrosegraham) reported 18 minutes ago

  @ChinaSelect Australia has had two major telecommunications network failures. As a result of the Telstra failure, three people died, including a baby. One person died as a result of the Optus failure. No infrastructure should have any exposure to foreign adversaries.

• 
  Ray (@rayethesis) reported 18 minutes ago

  This chart puts Starlink’s scale into perspective. At roughly $11.4B in annualized revenue, Starlink is already approaching the revenue scale of established telecom giants such as Singtel and sits in the same neighborhood as Telstra. That is remarkable considering Starlink is a relatively young satellite broadband network competing against companies that have spent decades building terrestrial infrastructure, spectrum portfolios, and massive subscriber bases. The important signal here is not just the absolute revenue, but how quickly Starlink has reached a level that takes traditional telecom companies decades to build. However, the comparison also exposes the problem. Telecom is a huge business, but it is not necessarily a high-growth business. Companies like China Mobile, Verizon, Deutsche Telekom, AT&T and NTT generate tens or even hundreds of billions in annual revenue, yet the market typically assigns them much lower growth expectations because connectivity eventually becomes a mature utility. Starlink has a better growth profile today because it is still penetrating underserved markets, adding capacity, expanding internationally, and converting new customers. But as the revenue base moves from $10B toward $20B, $30B and beyond, the question becomes whether Starlink can maintain venture-like growth rates while operating inside what is ultimately a telecom market. The bullish argument is that Starlink is not exactly a traditional telecom company. Its satellite constellation gives SpaceX a global distribution network that terrestrial operators struggle to replicate, particularly in rural areas, developing markets, maritime, aviation and other difficult-to-connect environments. There is also optionality around direct-to-device connectivity, enterprise services, government contracts and potentially other satellite applications. If those businesses become meaningful revenue streams, Starlink could evolve from simply being "satellite internet" into a broader space infrastructure platform. That would justify a much more aggressive valuation than simply capitalizing Starlink like another telecom operator. But this is where I think investors need to be careful with the SpaceX hype. A $11.4B revenue run-rate sounds enormous, but revenue alone does not determine the quality of the business. Starlink requires enormous capital expenditure to deploy and replenish satellites, ground infrastructure and user terminals, while bandwidth economics and competition will determine how much of that revenue eventually becomes free cash flow. The really interesting question is not whether Starlink can reach $20B or $30B in revenue. It is whether SpaceX can continue compounding revenue rapidly without Starlink becoming just another giant, capital-intensive telecom business. My take: SpaceX is incredibly cool, and Starlink reaching ~$11.4B of annual revenue is genuinely impressive. But if the main growth engine for the SpaceX story is ultimately just telecom, I'm much less excited. A bigger Starlink is great, but a bigger telecom company alone does not create an extraordinary valuation. The real upside comes if Starlink becomes the cash-flow engine that funds a much larger SpaceX ecosystem: launch, defense, direct-to-device, satellite infrastructure and eventually entirely new space-based businesses. Starlink is impressive but starlink alone is not enough. $SPCX