Australia’s relationship with digital connectivity has shifted decisively from “nice to have” to non-negotiable infrastructure. To understand how far that shift has gone, we surveyed 1,012 Australians on how mobile coverage (and its literal visibility) and internet speeds influence their real-world decisions.

The results show a population drawing clearer boundaries than policymakers, platforms and property markets may realise.

Across housing, mobile coverage and fixed internet, the pattern is consistent:

Properties lose buyers when connectivity is poor.
Properties lose buyers when infrastructure is visually intrusive.
Younger Australians are willing to pay real money for better digital access.

Connectivity now influences property values and purchasing decisions in ways that look increasingly similar to electricity, water and transport. Unlike those utilities, perception, visibility and trust play an outsized role.

What follows breaks this shift down, piece by piece.

‍

1. The 5G visibility penalty. When infrastructure becomes a liability

When we asked 1,012 Australians how a visible 5G tower would affect their willingness to buy a property, the answer was not subtle.

55% of potential buyers would not pay full market value for a home near visible 5G infrastructure. Nearly one in four, 23%, said they would refuse to buy at any price.

Another 23% would only proceed with at least a 5% discount, while 9% would accept smaller concessions. Only one-third said a nearby tower would have no impact on their decision.

Just 12% viewed it as a positive.

‍

This creates a measurable “tower tax” on affected properties. On Sydney’s median house price, the most common discount expectation translates to roughly $87,500 off perceived value.

The aversion is uneven:

NSW buyers are the most resistant nationally.
Millennials show the strongest overall discomfort, while older generations are more absolute.
Over a quarter of Boomers and Gen X would walk away entirely.
Gen Z is more pragmatic. Fewer refuse outright, but many treat the tower as leverage rather than a deal-breaker.

As 5G infrastructure expands, that tension is set to intensify. Telstra alone now operates more than 6,400 5G towers, up 26% year on year, with 2025 marking the fastest rollout in three years. Optus and Vodafone add further density.

‍

The technology delivers real benefits. The visual presence still carries a cost.

‍

2. No signal, no sale. The blackspot penalty is worse than the tower

If visible towers reduce demand, poor mobile coverage eliminates it.

When the same group of 1,012 Australians were asked about properties in mobile blackspots, 61% said they would refuse to buy outright. That rejection rate exceeds resistance to visible 5G towers.

Only 8% would purchase without hesitation. A further 14% would consider buying, but only with a discount, creating a clear “blackspot penalty” in the market.

‍

Demographic splits sharpen the impact:

Women are significantly more likely than men to rule out blackspot properties.
Baby Boomers show the highest resistance overall, using purchasing power to avoid compromise.
Younger buyers are more flexible, but still unwilling to accept persistent connectivity gaps.

This plays out against a backdrop of growing mistrust in coverage data. Carrier maps frequently fail to match lived experience, with terrain, buildings and interference creating dead zones that never appear on official maps. Government tools like the Mobile Audit Visualisation platform exist precisely because reported coverage and reality often diverge.

‍

That trust gap feeds directly into expectations. 69% of Australians believe real estate agents should be legally required to disclose mobile blackspots, treating connectivity as essential infrastructure rather than a lifestyle feature.

In practical terms, poor signal now shrinks buyer pools, delays sales and pressures prices. Even in a supply-constrained housing market, connectivity remains a hard line.

‍

3. Fibre as a premium asset. Younger buyers are paying for speed

Where mobile coverage defines minimum standards, fixed internet increasingly defines competitive advantage.

Among the 1,012 Australians surveyed, 39% said they would pay a premium for fibre-to-the-premises internet, averaging around $2,000. But the generational divide is stark.

Six in ten Gen Z buyers are willing to pay extra, compared with just 21% of Baby Boomers. Millennials sit in between, but put the most money behind the preference. A meaningful share would pay more than $5,000 for a fibre-connected home.

‍

Geography matters less than expected:

Willingness to pay is highest in NSW and Victoria and stronger in major cities, but regional buyers are not far behind.
Where fibre is available, demand follows.
Where it is not, expectations adjust downward, reinforcing underinvestment.

Fast internet has crossed from amenity to asset. For under-40 buyers, fibre connectivity signals work flexibility, income potential and long-term relevance. Homes without it are increasingly competing at a structural disadvantage.

‍

The bigger shift

When it comes to the home, Australians are drawing firmer boundaries.

They want reliable connectivity, but not at the expense of amenity or transparency.

They will pay premiums for infrastructure that expands opportunity.

And they will walk away entirely when it isn’t there.

Our survey made one thing very clear: connectivity is no longer neutral background infrastructure. It shapes value, behaviour and loyalty in measurable ways.

Ignoring that reality does not make the friction disappear. It simply moves the cost somewhere else.

‍

About the data

The data used in this analysis came from a survey of 1,012 Australian adults commissioned by Airteam in October 2025 together with other data sources below listed.

‍

5G Tower Installations

5G capable

Year	Telstra	Optus	TPG
2018	0	0	0
2019	0	0	0
2020	797	426	0
2021	2,695	1,010	163
2022	4,071	1,932	1,029
2023	4,559	2,905	2,063
2024	5,082	4,038	3,050
2025	6,421	4,939	3,759

‍

Total towers

Year	Telstra	Optus	TPG
2018	9,429	7,335	5,422
2019	9,972	7,712	5,608
2020	10,451	7,980	5,675
2021	10,766	8,238	5,892
2022	11,002	8,632	5,728
2023	11,302	8,821	5,769
2024	11,707	9,201	5,712
2025	11,767	9,391	5,207

‍

Australia's Most Unreliable Mobile Coverage by State

Analysis of government Mobile Audit Visualisation data reveals the LGAs in each state with the most inconsistent coverage reports, where carrier maps diverge most significantly from actual signal performance:

Queensland: Murweh (population 3,992, 654km west of Brisbane)
Northern Territory: Roper Gulf (7,516 residents, 15km east of Darwin)
Western Australia: Broome (18,870 residents, 1,683km northeast of Perth)
Victoria: Glenelg (20,007 residents, 315km west of Melbourne)
New South Wales: Cobar (4,015 residents, 567km northwest of Sydney)
Tasmania: Waratah-Wynyard (14,905 residents, 234km northwest of Hobart)
South Australia: Tatiara (7,071 residents, 224km northwest of Adelaide)

‍

Survey Results

Question: How would the visible presence of a 5G mobile phone tower near a property influence your decision to purchase it?

Results by generation

Response	Gen Z	Millennials	Gen X	Baby Boomers	Total
It would be a deal-breaker; I would not buy it, regardless of price	9%	21%	27%	27%	23%
I would only consider it with a large discount (more than 5% off the asking price)	33%	26%	21%	17%	23%
I would only consider it with a small discount (less than 5% off the asking price)	15%	15%	7%	4%	9%
It would have no influence on my decision	32%	26%	33%	40%	33%
It would be a positive feature, as it likely means excellent mobile signal	11%	12%	11%	13%	12%

‍

Results by gender

Response	Male	Female	Total
It would be a deal-breaker; I would not buy it, regardless of price	22%	24%	23%
I would only consider it with a large discount (more than 5% off the asking price)	23%	22%	23%
I would only consider it with a small discount (less than 5% off the asking price)	8%	9%	9%
It would have no influence on my decision	35%	33%	33%
It would be a positive feature, as it likely means excellent mobile signal	12%	12%	12%

‍

Results by state

Response	NSW	VIC	QLD	WA	All Other States	Total
It would be a deal-breaker; I would not buy it, regardless of price	26%	23%	22%	22%	20%	23%
I would only consider it with a large discount (more than 5% off the asking price)	22%	23%	21%	29%	20%	23%
I would only consider it with a small discount (less than 5% off the asking price)	11%	9%	9%	6%	7%	9%
It would have no influence on my decision	27%	36%	38%	33%	38%	33%
It would be a positive feature, as it likely means excellent mobile signal	14%	10%	11%	11%	15%	12%

‍

Results by city / regional

Response	Regional	Metro	Total
It would be a deal-breaker; I would not buy it, regardless of price	21%	24%	23%
I would only consider it with a large discount (more than 5% off the asking price)	15%	25%	23%
I would only consider it with a small discount (less than 5% off the asking price)	8%	9%	9%
It would have no influence on my decision	43%	30%	33%
It would be a positive feature, as it likely means excellent mobile signal	13%	12%	12%

‍

‍Question: How much more would you pay for an identical house if it had the best possible internet (FTTP) versus the slowest?

Results by generation

Response	Gen Z	Millennials	Gen X	Baby Boomers	Total
I would not pay anything extra	40%	48%	61%	79%	61%
$1 – $2,499	34%	28%	18%	12%	20%
$2,500 – $4,999	18%	9%	13%	5%	10%
$5,000 – $9,999	4%	9%	5%	3%	5%
$10,000 or more	4%	5%	4%	2%	4%

‍

Results by gender

Response	Male	Female	Total
I would not pay anything extra	61%	61%	61%
$1 – $2,499	20%	21%	20%
$2,500 – $4,999	9%	11%	10%
$5,000 – $9,999	6%	5%	5%
$10,000 or more	4%	3%	4%

‍

Results by state

Response	NSW	WA	QLD	VIC	All Other States	Total
I would not pay anything extra	57%	60%	68%	57%	68%	61%
$1 – $2,499	19%	23%	18%	23%	20%	20%
$2,500 – $4,999	12%	7%	7%	11%	7%	10%
$5,000 – $9,999	8%	3%	4%	4%	4%	5%
$10,000 or more	4%	7%	2%	4%	1%	4%

‍

Results by city / regional

Response	Metro	Regional	Total
I would not pay anything extra	60%	64%	61%
$1 – $2,499	21%	17%	20%
$2,500 – $4,999	9%	11%	10%
$5,000 – $9,999	5%	4%	5%
$10,000 or more	4%	3%	4%

‍

‍Question: Would you buy a house with no reliable mobile coverage?

Results by generation

Response	Gen Z	Millennials	Gen X	Baby Boomers	Total
Yes	9%	8%	10%	6%	8%
No	66%	64%	60%	57%	61%
It would depend on the price	17%	15%	16%	11%	14%
It would depend on the location of the property	9%	13%	14%	26%	17%

‍

Results by gender

Response	Male	Female	Total
Yes	10%	6%	8%
No	56%	65%	61%
It would depend on the price	16%	12%	14%
It would depend on the location of the property	18%	17%	17%

‍

Results by state

Response	NSW	WA	QLD	VIC	All Other States	Total
Yes	8%	10%	7%	9%	5%	8%
No	61%	64%	60%	61%	59%	61%
It would depend on the price	14%	10%	16%	15%	12%	14%
It would depend on the location of the property	17%	16%	17%	16%	24%	17%

‍

Results by city / regional

Response	Metro	Regional	Total
Yes	7%	9%	8%
No	63%	55%	61%
It would depend on the price	14%	13%	14%
It would depend on the location of the property	16%	23%	17%

‍

Question: Would you expect a real estate agent to disclose this information (mobile reception quality)?

Results by generation

Response	Gen Z	Millennials	Gen X	Baby Boomers	Total
Yes	64%	68%	69%	71%	69%
No	19%	20%	17%	16%	18%
Not sure	17%	12%	13%	13%	13%

‍

Results by gender

Response	Male	Female	Total
Yes	67%	71%	69%
No	20%	16%	18%
Not sure	14%	13%	13%

‍

Results by state

Response	NSW	WA	QLD	VIC	All Other States	Total
Yes	68%	73%	67%	68%	73%	69%
No	18%	14%	19%	21%	13%	18%
Not sure	14%	13%	15%	11%	14%	13%

‍

Results by city / regional

Response	Metro	Regional	Total
Yes	69%	68%	69%
No	19%	15%	18%
Not sure	12%	17%	13%

‍

Update

realestate.com.au picked up on our data running a feature on just how impactful the visible view of a 5G tower could be to a property’s value.

Whatever the myths or beliefs when it comes to 5G, the issue is clearly a live one and it’s an important one for property buyers and sellers to know and policymakers and telcos to balance.

The article is here.

Share this post