Congress and States Should Close Loopholes to Stop Broadband Vandals
The information superhighway has bandits. In 2024 alone, there were nearly 6,000 incidents of theft and vandalism of communications infrastructure. Thieves often cut broadband lines in search of copper they can sell to metal recyclers. As copper prices have climbed, so too have the number of thefts, with some areas of the country seeing as much as a 500 percent increase. Criminals frequently cut fiber optic lines, which they mistake for copper ones, also leading to devastating service outages.
Communications networks are essential to health, safety, security, and prosperity, so protecting network infrastructure from intentional damage is critical. The central thrust of this effort should be coordination between local law enforcement and Internet service providers (ISPs) to reduce the market for stolen goods through strategic surveillance and targeted community outreach to metal recyclers.
Surveillance of infrastructure sites and potential points of sale can identify bad actors so that law enforcement can catch them, while also dissuading other would-be criminals from stealing copper in the future. Additionally, outreach efforts from law enforcement will reduce the number of recyclers that accept stolen copper. This approach will also deter thieves as they won’t steal what they can’t sell.
Some cities are already prioritizing these types of crime prevention programs. St. Louis, Missouri, established a policing task force focused on preventing copper theft after a copper theft incident last summer shut down the city’s 911 call system. The city of Columbus, Ohio, recently launched a surveillance network to curb crime in the city’s downtown neighborhood. Although this program isn’t focused on communications networks specifically, it is a good example of the type of strategic surveillance program that could help prevent intentional damage to communications infrastructure.
To support local prevention efforts, state and federal laws must provide a stronger legal framework for arresting and convicting those who damage broadband infrastructure. Even though many jurisdictions currently impose criminal penalties for attacks on critical infrastructure, broadband systems are often excluded from those definitions.
State laws have varied definitions of critical communications infrastructure, some of which exclude significant parts of broadband networks. Many laws only apply to infrastructure located in fenced or secured facilities—a limitation that ignores the fact that broadband infrastructure is widely dispersed to serve end users. In response, states such as Kansas and Montana are expanding their definitions of “covered infrastructure” to be more inclusive, and every state should follow suit.
At the federal level, 18 U.S.C. § 1362 protects government-owned communications systems from malicious actions but not privately owned ones. Since most broadband infrastructure is privately owned, the status quo essentially excludes broadband from the statute. A recent bill from Congresswoman Laurel Lee (R-FL) would close this loophole by expanding the definition of communications infrastructure to “prohibit the destruction of broadband access service.” Like state laws that have expanded to recognize broadband as essential infrastructure, this federal measure would enable the justice system to prosecute those who intentionally damage broadband networks, regardless of ownership. After all, disruptions of broadband service should be treated as what it is: an attack on critical infrastructure.
