Telstra outages and service status in Falls Creek, Victoria

Problems in the last 24 hours in Falls Creek, Victoria

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

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:

• 
  Elizabeth Anne Kelly (@kellynettlefold) reported 46 seconds ago

  Unacceptable Telstra and disgraceful. Calls attempted did not go thru. Bad. Another altage?

• 
  aneko violet (@AnekoExe) reported 1 minute ago

  Why ******** is there princess bubblegum from adventure time on the side of the Telstra phone box???

• 
  w0tn0t3 #VaccineFree#AbolishTheUN #AbolishEUSSR (@w0tn0t2201) reported 1 minute ago

  @roberts_pa97578 I’d never use @telstra - the experiences I had with them as a network consultant for clients were atrocious - their NBN implementations/installations/services were pathetic

• 
  Ray (@rayethesis) reported 2 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

• 
  Ben 🇺🇦🇦🇺🚴 (@thecattery) reported 4 minutes ago

  @22thinkinggirl Gabby Gabby Who was in a massive WhatsApp exchange with Anthony Carbines who I was sitting near at the footy ~2 months ago, I thought wtf is this about. Was the week of the Telstra V/Line outage.

• 
  Meg Coffey (@TexanMeg) reported 8 minutes ago

  Hey @telstra, it’s been 15hrs since I could make a call or get service outside of wifi hotspots. Any chance of any help whatsoever? Your app doesn’t work. Your online support keeps asking me what modem I’m using. I’m currently travelling and no service is not ok.

• 
  Romire 🇦🇺 (@RomireTV) reported 12 minutes ago

  @AshConnell Well Telstra and Optus both had system network failures, and they cant even take responsibility for it

• 
  steve hearne (@stevehearne7) reported 13 minutes ago

  @DHughesy Howard and Costello sold telstra and our gold reserves at rock bottom prices, that is how they started the future fund, you brainless **** ****.

• 
  There’s Only One Jezza (@StandMeOver) reported 16 minutes ago

  @Ausbobsmit And she’s as dumb as ****. Watched the Telstra 000 enquiry and she couldn’t even get the Telstra CEO’s name right. Any wonder these senate enquirers aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. As for actions post them, wipe my arse with them as the majority are forgotten.

• 
  Brent Hodgson (@BrentHodgson) reported 17 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!"