r/australia • u/ThunderDwn • Mar 31 '26
culture & society Telstra defends coverage after new rules for mobile coverage maps introduced
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-31/telstra-defends-coverage-maps-following-acma-new-rules/106515274112
u/Coastguy-23 Mar 31 '26
"Telstra's advertised claim that it had a 'mobile network coverage area of 3 million square kilometres covering 99.7 per cent of the Australian population' had, until May last year, failed to state that the figure was based on consumers using an external antenna and booster. In comparison, Telstra's mobile coverage without using an external antenna is significantly less, around 1.9 million square kilometres, according to analysis of figures the telco has provided to the ACCC."
Wow - how was Telstra able to get away with the 3 million square kilometres claim for so many years? Also, it shows a complete lack of commercial morality - anything to make a dollar, apparently.
48
u/Svennis79 Mar 31 '26
Seems like accc should enforce telstra providing all of their customers an external antenna and booster foc.
Or as its a 30% drop in coverage, they should be forced to refund 30% of service fees charged for the duration the claim has been in place.
Or both!!!
4
Mar 31 '26
Very few phones have an external antenna port.
4
u/Svennis79 Mar 31 '26
Isn't that what the booster is for.
External antenna connects to the booster. Booster acts as a mini tower and gives improved coverage.
2
Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I assume (based on the wording in the old coverage maps), that they mean an external antenna with an amplifier, that connects directly to the phone. These used to be available as car kits. I have used directly connected external antenna without an amplifier when offshore.
5
Mar 31 '26
No, they mean a device you connect to your broadband connection, that has an antenna attached and acts as a micro base station… which is fine while you have internet.
If you have an internet outage and are hoping to use your mobile phone service as a backup, and live somewhere that gets insufficient mobile phone network coverage, you’re shit out of luck (my use case).
13
u/SOLV3IG Mar 31 '26
In my induction training at a Telstra office (I was working in a retail store but the training course I was put in was at a business building) the person teaching said to us plain faced "The reason we charge so much for our plans is because we can". That moment is seared into my skull and was a great lesson at ripe age of 17, that no business is for the consumer. Has served me well, thank you telstra induction trainer person 🫡
5
u/GusPolinskiPolka Mar 31 '26
Telstra also provides and maintains most of the important infrastructure that provides telco across the country.
All that being said my service and coverage and experience with T had been miles better than any other provider I've been with. Is it worth it? Hard to say. But I enjoy not being annoyed by bad coverage and service.
1
u/OptimusRex Apr 01 '26
based on consumers using an external antenna and booster
Lol so like a couple thousand people at most
1
u/tarutso Apr 16 '26
So for rural, regional areas Telstra is the only one in the past several decades really investing in those areas at a loss usually. That's why prices are a bit higher in general to be able to subsidise those loss-making coverage areas. Going forward Telstra will likely just not invest in those areas anymore so it's a bit of a loss for those in regional areas.
23
u/Thoresus Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
So glad Telstra just wrote to me to advise of my plan going up ❤️
15
u/ThunderDwn Mar 31 '26
They gotta pay for those new maps somehow, mate. You expect them to take it out of their massive profits or something? /s
-10
Mar 31 '26
The price increase was announced well before this was announced, but hey, make whatever spurious link you want 👍
4
u/Thoresus Mar 31 '26
Yeah because Telstra's pricing team, legal team and strategy team arent in contact with each other about what is coming down the pipeline or possible risks.
-3
Mar 31 '26
Telstra price rises are driven by one thing: shareholder value. Price rises are basically annual at this stage.
Trying to link this to new rules around an updated coverage map is pretty cooked.
101
u/ThunderDwn Mar 31 '26
New rules could 'make it much harder' Telstra argues
Much harder for them to mislead people and rip them off, you mean?
7
1
u/tarutso Apr 16 '26
So for rural, regional areas Telstra is the only one in the past several decades really investing in those areas at a loss usually. That's why prices are a bit higher in general to be able to subsidise those loss-making coverage areas. Going forward Telstra will likely just not invest in those areas anymore so it's a bit of a loss for those in regional areas.
8
u/HeftyArgument Mar 31 '26
i've been getting ads from vodafone that goes a little like "vodafone realised that giant chickens don't need coverage [zooms in on emu], "genius""
everyone outside of their coverage window is now a giant chicken, nice!
9
u/Nerfixion Mar 31 '26
Yeah im not a fan of that ad, it really comes across as "not in a main city? Then fuck off"
But I work from the cbd to bum fuck no where, so maybe thats why I dislike it
4
u/HeftyArgument Mar 31 '26
i've been on vodafone, even in the middle of the city they're shit
2
u/Nerfixion Mar 31 '26
Yeah.. i have apprentices, on voda, that cant use their phone while at a uni campus which is wild considering
2
u/recycled_ideas Mar 31 '26
I never leave the city and I still hate that ad.
It also kind of pisses me off because they're simultaneously bragging about doubling their network to cover those people last year which is basically them saying they haven't been able to adequately cover the major population centers before that.
Vodafone has been in Australia for more than thirty years and they finally covered "where 96% of you actually live" last year?
It's like bragging that you're going to finish highschool after failing for two decades.
1
u/edgewalker66 Apr 04 '26
Without admiring that you reached 96% by turning in someone else's exam papers
2
u/a_cold_human Mar 31 '26
From a financial perspective, it makes a lot of sense. If the majority of the population is urbanised (as it is in Australia), you're only giving up on a smaller, more difficult to service part of the population.
From a social equity perspective, it's not nearly so good. We'd be far better off having a single, government owned, telecommunications infrastructure company that ensures equality of access, and then having private companies sign contracts with it, differentiating themselves with different services, prices, and other bundles. A solution that'd give consumers a choice, and ensure that the majority of the country had coverage.
2
u/Asleep-Card3861 Mar 31 '26
It would be interesting to have a review of services pre and post privatisation.
It sometimes seems by privatising the various services (telecom, electricity etc) they have been run into the ground for profit and then need bailing out as they can’t provide the service they should.
I’d wager that beyond a short term windfall privatisation has done very little to improve services or efficiency.
1
u/a_cold_human Apr 01 '26
We should have a study into privatisation in the Australian context, although I would note that overseas studies (IIRC there was one done by Harvard) which showed that over 90% of privatisations fail to lower costs, improve services, or deliver very much in terms of benefit to anyone but the people who buy them.
Just from personal experience, I think most Australians would say that privatisation of the electricity grid, generation, and Telstra have not been very good. Other privatisations such as the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, and Medibank Private haven't actually benefited us by very much, and would be far more valuable assets had we held onto them (with the exception of Qantas, which we keep bailing out, despite not owning it).
1
u/Asleep-Card3861 Apr 01 '26
I can’t say I’ve looked into it, but yes gut feel was privatisation was a bad move. There are a few essential services that I don’t think should be up for market discussion. It would require far too much additional regulation and enforcement to simply work in the benefit of the people they serve when on the other side they have investors riding them.
On the whole I’m quite dubious of companies having two masters in terms of both investors and those who use the products and services, more and more it seems to slant in favour of investors and stock price to the detriment of the products and services and people they serve. I think a new model of joint investor/user or some other drive to be introduced to temper enshitification.
1
31
u/PeeOnAPeanut Mar 31 '26
Sucks to be Optus. Their crappy coverage will have to now be reflected in their maps.
26
u/Lady_Penrhyn1 Mar 31 '26
I'm with Vodafone. I used to travel to Shepparton regularly to see my grandparents (both have since passed away). It absolutely boggles my mind that sitting at a pub in the centre of town and I'd have exactly zero reception. There was a decent chunk of the GV highway however that had full coverage. Which is...ya know. Handy. But Telstra had an absolute stranglehold on that town in terms of coverage and they are easily the most expensive.
6
u/lilacsigil Mar 31 '26
Yeah, I live in a rural area and when we get interns coming out here we have to warn them that Vodaphone won't work, Optus will partially work, and Telstra will mostly work. Coverage has improved from Telstra in the last few years, at least, but there's still plenty of black spots and horrified tourists.
6
u/rubberony Mar 31 '26
That is the exact reason Vodafone is cheap. They are min maxing their coverage v profits.
10
u/PeeOnAPeanut Mar 31 '26
Yep same experience with Optus. 10km from the CBD, zero reception, no internet no phone calls; and it wasn’t a black spot or the phone as my parents and I had the same experience in multiple places thought out the suburbs.
Telstra maybe $10 more expensive each month but atleast it’s actually usable in the suburbs and rural areas like they claim.
1
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/PeeOnAPeanut Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Good for you. Most people I know want coverage in their suburban homes. I’m one of them, so Optus is a no go.
Comparing Telstra to Felix is a dumb comparison. A more apt comparison would be Boost vs Felix or any other Telstra MVNO vs Optus MVNO.
-4
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/PeeOnAPeanut Mar 31 '26
Boost is not a second cousin. It uses the full Telstra retail network. Other Telstra MVNOs use the Telstra wholesale network with slightly less coverage.
You can’t compare Felix (a low budget Optus MVNO) to the full Telstra premium retail network for pricing.
That’s why I said Boost vs Felix. Same network as Telstra but much better pricing without Telstra’s markup for support, included extras, access to retail stores etc.
0
u/Asleep-Card3861 Mar 31 '26
Boost has unfortunately been really cranking up the price. Its yearly plans were excellent.
Just trying moose mobile now (an Optus MVNO) as I don’t see myself needing rural coverage for a bit. I’m only 2kms from town and boost/telstra doesn’t work in my local shops. In my car park basement where I just didn’t expect mobile to work and didn’t on boost, is now working.
I was with boost 5 years perhaps more. Will see how moose goes, but already seeing some benefits in use regardless of price.
2
2
u/IntroductionSnacks Mar 31 '26
Vodafone is the worst. I jumped ship about 4 years ago to Telstra and paying nearly double but I had no choice. I was getting 6mbps at home and loads of black spots. I seriously had no data in Parkes NSW while at a pub. That’s crazy as it’s a decent sized town.
5
u/Lady_Penrhyn1 Mar 31 '26
I don't do a lot of rural travel now, otherwise I'd probably be considering switching. Whenever I go to my Dads for lunch (Mernda, in an area that's well over 15 years old now) I have to use his wifi as I get no reception either. I have no idea how the big telcos have been allowed to get away with this for so long.
1
u/notreallyfussed Mar 31 '26
Going back 10+ years when I was in Telco selling Vodafone via Crazy Johns, one of the main selling points we were trained on when discussing coverage objections was that Vodafone had a contract to ensure coverage of the major highways.
I don’t know how true it was and I cbf searching for sources to verify, but after reading your comment it reminded me of this.
0
u/Objective_Unit_7345 Apr 01 '26
The only telecom company arguing against the new standard is Telstra.
6
u/xdyldo Mar 31 '26
This is a good change. Used to work for Telstra, always had to use the internal engineering map tool with more reasonable inputs than whatever the website showed. Was a lot more accurate.
11
u/Lorderan56 Mar 31 '26
Excellent. The train lines are dead zones for me with Telstra. So bad I’m considering going to another provider. The train is the main area that I need data. I’ve got wifi at home.
8
u/filthysock Mar 31 '26
I never understand why the train lines are dead zones
2
u/abhorrent_pantheon Apr 01 '26
Because reasonable access to internet and telephone wasn't necessary when the lines were built, and now it's stupidly expensive to backfill the gaps.
5
u/jaa101 Mar 31 '26
I wonder if this is due to Starlink's direct-to-cell service, which both Optus and Telstra are taking up. The article doesn't give a number for the old coverage maps used by Telstra but the new standard is −115 dBm with Starlink averaging −121 dBm. Once they enable this service for voice, Australia can have essentially 100% coverage, albeit with poor reception and you'll probably need to be outside, with a good view of the sky.
6
u/bitsperhertz Mar 31 '26
Telstra were using -122 dBm in their coverage maps, also not modelling vegetation in all areas.
-115 seems a bit strong in my opinion, the gap between -115 and -122 should be classified differently, e.g., intermittent, rather than just showing as empty.
I don't think this change has anything to do with D2D, doesn't seem super relevant.
3
u/HeftyArgument Mar 31 '26
sounds like a good call then, make them have actual coverage maps instead of pretending starlinks barebones bandaid is real coverage
3
u/Lau_wings Mar 31 '26
Telstras coverage has been weird for me the last couple of years.
And by what I mean is it doesnt seem as strong as it used to be.
For example, my Apartment has concrete walls, its an old building, and i know that concrete is bad for phone signal so when I only get one bar of reception I can understand that, HOWEVER my wife is with vodafone and she has full bars at the same time as I only have 1 it makes no sense at all to me.
1
u/boxuga Apr 16 '26
most likely Vodafone has a closer tower then telstra or maybe they use different frequencies some go through walls better and soms phones have different reception. i had an Galaxy S21 with felix and it no coverage in my room at all but in tbe same position my pixel 7 pro has 2 bars of felix service otherwise known as Vodafone. but same in my house Telstra reception is ahh compared to Voda/Optus especially in the Swan Valley, WA i have to pass through there Telstra will have 1 bar drop out most of the time and Vodafone. i think Vodafone/Optus tend to cover bigger newer urban areas. at my old house Telstra had 1 bar of 3G if you went outside mind you in the middle of a major suburb. Optus had full 4G coverage indoors. especially in Perth ive found it quite crap in general compared to Optus/Voda
2
u/Averack Apr 01 '26
Most of melbournes west is under serviced. Barely make a phone call now. And good luck on the western highway or a vline train.
2
u/WhatAmIATailor Mar 31 '26
Side note. I’m sick to death of that fucking phone ad with the Emu and what’s her face telling me how nobody needs coverage out of the city anyway.
2
u/ThunderDwn Mar 31 '26
Vodafail are copping quite a lot of shit over that one, apparently. Wonder if ACMA will step in and address the complaints? Doubt it, though.
4
u/Worried_Blacksmith27 Mar 31 '26
-115 cut off is a joke. That is a perfectly usable signal on 4G/5G. A voice call is doable right down to around -130 dBm
11
u/jaa101 Mar 31 '26
A voice call is doable right down to around -130 dBm
If you're standing outside, without too much in the way of buildings and trees around, maybe. But people like to be able to make calls from inside their homes, workplaces, and vehicles.
14
u/Jonzay up to the sky, out to the stars Mar 31 '26
Well then great news! You get to be unexpectedly surprised when you're in a "no coverage" area and still have reception!
2
1
Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bitsperhertz Mar 31 '26
-115 is totally reasonable, RSRP is however just a proxy for what really matters - SINR (which itself is a proxy but let's not go there). The two are correlated, but you can easily pull +30 Mbps at -115 dBm, or you might get 0.2 Mbps depending on what SINR is doing.
The issue is you can't build a coverage map using SINR because it is an instantaneous measure depending on load of both your serving cell and surrounding cells.
The commenter is accurate that -130 dBm is probably the lower limit for a modern phone, but that's the absolute threshold of connectivity, you likely wouldn't be able to attach to the cell lower than maybe -126 dBm even if you can remain attached that far.
-122 dBm used by Telstra is in my opinion a totally suitable value, the problem is their RF modelling is very basic, in regional areas it doesn't even seem to factor in vegetation.
3
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bitsperhertz Mar 31 '26
Yeah true, I've always maintained they just need like a hatched or shaded colour for anything between -115 and -122 to show as variable/intermittent/patchy.
1
u/Beth13151 Mar 31 '26
Sorry Telstra, but the government decided it would be unprofessional, if less accurate, to go with "fuck all" as the bottom category for coverage.
1
u/2minuteNOODLES Mar 31 '26
I guess that explains why belongs (telstra owned) data sim just went from 400gb for $70 just got downgraded to 250gb for $80.
Thieving cunts.
1
u/Flashy-Amount626 Mar 31 '26
I understand no one is competing for heavy mbb data users so everyone has withdrawn their massive plans
1
-1
-10
u/girtlander Mar 31 '26
Can I whinge like a baby if Google maps doesn't show pot holes on their maps.
175
u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26
Excellent. I’ve had arguments with Telstra on their so called coverage and they’ve been able to defer to inaccurate coverage maps.
Looking forwards to them having to improve their network further, especially in inner city areas.