An Act to amend 941.40 (1), 941.40 (2), 941.40 (3) and 941.40 (4) (b) of the statutes; Relating to: tampering with telecommunication or electric wires and providing a penalty.
AB242 expands Wisconsin’s tampering-with-wires statute to cover modern communications infrastructure. Under current law, the statute applies to telegraph, telecommunications, electric light, and electric power lines and related property; this bill adds video service and broadband service lines and property throughout the affected provisions. It also updates the notice requirement for people who have the right to alter attached structures or timber, requiring 24 hours’ notice to the relevant video service or broadband provider as well as the existing utility or telecommunications company.
The bill further increases penalties for two offenses. Intentionally breaking, interrupting, removing, destroying, disturbing, interfering with, or injuring covered lines or property would be elevated from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class I felony. Intentionally making a physical electrical connection with covered wires, cables, conductors, grounds, equipment, facilities, or other property would be elevated from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class I felony. The permission exception remains in place for conduct authorized by the owning company.
AB242 would amend section 941.40 of the Wisconsin statutes by broadening the scope of protected infrastructure to include video service and broadband service providers and by increasing criminal penalties for certain tampering offenses. The practical effect is to extend existing utility-protection rules to internet and video network infrastructure and to expose offenders to significantly more serious felony penalties, including up to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for Class I felonies.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text and its introduction by a bipartisan group of legislators, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and infrastructure-protection bill rather than a controversial policy change. The published status suggests it advanced at least to formal publication, but no vote history is available to indicate broader legislative sentiment.
The main point of contention, based on the text itself, is the penalty increase: conduct that was previously a misdemeanor would become a Class I felony, which is a substantial escalation in criminal exposure. Another potential issue is the breadth of the new coverage, since the bill extends criminal protections to broadband and video service infrastructure, which could affect contractors, property owners, and others working near utility attachments. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided committee materials, so any contention is inferred from the policy changes rather than recorded debate.