Can You Hear Me? Better Reception in the County Starts With Better Answers

At the mayoral debate inside Picton’s Regent Theatre, attendees appeared to struggle to access the audience survey on their phones. It was a fitting illustration of a familiar County frustration: being somewhere you would reasonably expect to connect, then waiting for a page that refuses to load.

That observation cannot tell us whether the difficulty involved cellular reception, network congestion, Wi-Fi or the survey itself. But when the moderator asked candidates about dropped calls and poor service, the subject hardly needed an introduction.

Terry Shortt, Ernie Margetson and Brad Nieman all recognized the problem. Their answers touched on additional towers, geography, neighbourhood opposition and cooperation between providers. What emerged less clearly was a practical plan for municipal leadership.

With substantial investment already made and a major regional project now declared complete, residents deserve to understand what has improved, what still fails and what happens next.

What did the candidates offer?

Shortt identified reported dead spots near the cement plant, Northport and South Marysburgh, arguing that additional towers would be necessary.

“I would encourage Rogers, Telcom, and any other supplier to increase the number of cell towers that they have,” Terry Shortt said, before acknowledging that this might be unrealistic.

The direction was clear, although the mechanism was less so. Which locations need additional infrastructure, and how would a mayor help move those projects forward?

Margetson emphasized the difficulty of finding acceptable sites.

“It’s fine to say we want more cell towers until it’s in your neighborhood or you’re staring at it,” Ernie Margetson said.

He referenced proposals that did not proceed, explained that terrain affects coverage and suggested leaving much of the work to the federal government and the Eastern Ontario Regional Network, or EORN. His answer recognized genuine constraints, but left questions about which projects remain outstanding and how municipal leadership could help resolve them.

Nieman also discussed opposition to proposed locations and raised tower sharing. He described calls going directly to voicemail at home, then called for locations acceptable to the community.

“We need more towers but we also need have the towers … shared,” Brad Nieman said.

Sharing is worth examining. His suggestion that charges discourage providers from using existing towers, however, needs supporting local evidence.

The moderator also asked about internet service. The responses largely remained focused on cellular reception. We invite all three candidates to explain their approach to home-internet availability, reliability and affordability through comments or email to PEC Connect; we will update this article with their responses.

The County has already invested

This discussion begins with an important fact: PEC has participated financially in improving cellular service.

An April 2023 EORN presentation to council recorded a County contribution of $236,219, paid in four instalments. Its local project table, dated March 15, 2023, listed nine planned tower upgrades, seven new towers and one colocation. All nine upgrades were complete at that point, alongside two new towers; the presentation cautioned that sites could change. These are historical figures, rather than the final local inventory.

On August 20, 2026, EORN and Rogers announced completion of the regional Cell Gap Project. They reported 346 new wireless sites, comprising new towers and colocations, plus 311 upgraded existing sites across eastern Ontario.

The project’s targets were 99% voice coverage, 95% standard-definition coverage and 85% high-definition coverage in defined regional demand areas where people live, work and travel on major roadways. Those figures do not establish reliable indoor reception at every County address, or equivalent improvements for customers of every carrier.

A regional project can meet its targets while particular households and businesses continue experiencing failures. The useful next question is what the completed investment delivered locally, and how remaining gaps are being assessed.

EORN and Rogers are invited to provide PEC’s final project inventory, activation dates and local performance information so this article can be updated.

Are visitors overwhelming the network?

When service seems worse during tourist season, it is understandable that residents connect the two. There is a technical basis for investigating that possibility.

EORN identifies congestion as a potential cause of dropped calls, using busy Highway 401 ONroutes during summer vacations as an example. Its guidance also explains: “Even with strong signal strength, if many people are using the network at the same time, your connection could be slow.”

That establishes a possible mechanism, rather than a diagnosis of Picton’s problems.

Weak coverage, indoor signal obstruction and congestion can produce overlapping frustrations. EORN identifies distance, terrain, foliage and building materials as factors affecting reception. Rogers cautions that its coverage maps are approximate and actual connections also depend on capacity, equipment and environmental conditions.

Before blaming tourists, we need evidence about which networks struggle, where and when. If predictable seasonal demand contributes to failures, the more productive question concerns whether network capacity adequately serves the community during its busiest periods.

Better service involves choices

The candidates’ comments about opposition deserve investigation, but objections should be examined individually.

A resident presentation concerning a proposed Rogers tower at Georges Road and Foster’s Road in Sophiasburgh raised alleged notification failures, visual impacts, proximity to homes and wetlands, traffic concerns and health objections. That document records the objectors’ arguments; it does not independently establish every claim or prove that opposition cancelled the project.

Health concerns also require accurate context. Health Canada’s current assessment finds no established health risks from the low radiofrequency exposure levels associated with compliant cellular infrastructure. Residents’ concerns can be heard without presenting disputed claims as settled science.

Picton’s own history shows how complicated the alternatives can become. In 2014, council considered proposed Bell antennas on the Regent Theatre’s fly tower alongside an alternative freestanding tower near Elizabeth Street. The heritage committee requested visual illustrations, structural information and consideration of distributed antenna systems.

That history offers a useful reminder: the choice may involve different structures, designs and locations, each requiring assessment.

Tower sharing also has an existing federal framework. Current ISED conditions require applicable licensees to respond to sharing proposals, negotiate in good faith and participate in arbitration under specified circumstances. Commercial terms and technical suitability still matter; sharing a structure is also different from sharing a network.

Before asking residents to accept another tower, providers should explain what it would deliver and why existing structures or alternative sites cannot adequately meet the need.

What can a mayor do?

Final tower-siting authority rests federally, while municipalities represent local land-use concerns. That limits what a mayor can promise, but leaves room for coordination and advocacy. 

PEC has previously examined its own role. A 2021 staff report described the municipal process facing internet providers as “fraught with complexity and confusion,” and proposed a coordinated concierge approach. Its current operation and results warrant follow-up.

A reasonable municipal plan could identify recurring failures, seek provider assessments, help evaluate suitable locations and report progress publicly.

Should busy centres such as Picton, Wellington and Bloomfield receive particular attention because failures affect many residents, businesses and visitors? That is worth discussing, while recognizing that rural households, workers and travellers also depend on service.

The balance requires evidence about need, benefit and impact, alongside an honest explanation of what happens when a proposal does not proceed.

Have your say

Where does your service fail?

Tell us your provider, the nearest road or intersection, whether you are indoors or outdoors, and whether the problem involves calls, texts or mobile data. Does it happen throughout the year or mainly during busy periods? Please avoid posting private addresses.

We also want to hear what changes you would support. Would antennas on existing structures be preferable? Would you consider a standalone tower if its benefits and alternatives were clearly demonstrated? What information would you need?

These experiences can identify patterns for investigation; they will not constitute a representative coverage survey.

Candidates, municipal staff, EORN and providers are invited to comment or email PEC Connect with documented information, including the abandoned proposals mentioned at the debate and any local barriers to tower sharing.

Better service requires workable infrastructure. Finding that balance begins with hearing local voices, explaining the choices and making clear who will act on the gaps that remain.

---

Candidate quotations are from the transcribed mayoral-debate transcript, question seven.