The United Kingdom is seeking tougher penalties for damaging critical underwater infrastructure, but industry insiders warn that stronger rules alone cannot prevent widespread disruption.
As concerns over sabotage and suspicious Russian activity in European waters intensify, the United Kingdom (UK) is working on legislation that could see those deliberately damaging critical undersea infrastructure jailed for up to 14 years, according to a statement.
The proposed penalties also include unlimited fines for interfering with undersea cables and pipelines. If adopted, the changes would update legislation dating back to 1885.
The plans would introduce new security obligations for cable operators and give the government greater powers to respond to national security threats.
The government points to growing geopolitical tensions as a reason for the changes.
"The threats we face have changed dramatically, with suspicious Russian activity around critical undersea infrastructure," said Ian Murray, Telecoms minister of the UK.
The UK's move follows a series of incidents in European waters, including the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage in 2022, damage to the Baltic connector gas pipeline in 2023 and several undersea cable failures in the Baltic Sea in 2024.
Such incidents highlight the importance of infrastructure connecting countries across Europe and beyond.
Subsea fibre-optic cables carry around 99% of intercontinental internet traffic worldwide, according to a 2025 report by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre.
Stretching thousands of kilometres across the seabed, they transmit everything from video calls and emails to financial transactions and business communications.
A severed cable does not necessarily cause an internet blackout. The global network allows data to be rerouted through alternative connections when one fails.
However, the additional traffic can overwhelm backup capacity, potentially slowing online payments, banking services and other applications that depend on reliable connectivity.
Can tougher laws make Europe's underwater networks safer?
While the UK government argues that stronger laws are necessary to deter interference and improve operators' preparedness, industry insiders warn that tougher penalties alone cannot guarantee network resilience.
"Adding more cables along the same corridors doesn't guarantee resilience," Tony O'Sullivan, CEO of international network operator RETN, which carries data across Europe, Asia and North America, told Euronews Next.
Laying new cables along existing routes is often cheaper, but they can end up sharing landing points and passing through the same narrow corridors.
"We call it 'fake diversity'," O'Sullivan said.
This means several connections could be damaged in a single incident, even when operators have invested in additional cables.
The risks extend beyond deliberate sabotage. Around 150 to 200 subsea telecommunications cable faults occur worldwide each year, with 70 to 80% caused by accidental human activity, primarily fishing and ships dragging anchors, according to a report by the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC).
However, O'Sullivan warns that investment is not keeping pace with the growing risks.
"The fix is simple − we need more routes, subsea and on land, that go different ways. It's more expensive, but it significantly reduces the risk of a single incident taking out several routes at once and slowing down services for millions of people," he said.
How is the rest of Europe protecting its cables?
Similar efforts to strengthen underwater infrastructure are underway elsewhere in Europe.
Denmark is developing new surveillance capabilities to monitor critical underwater infrastructure, including cables and pipelines, and detect potential threats.
In February 2026, the European Commission announced a €347 million investment in strategic submarine cable projects, including €20 million to strengthen repair capabilities in the Baltic Sea.
The UK government is consulting on its proposals until 14 January 2027, with feedback expected to shape the final legislation.