On 4 November 2026 the Swiss Federal Council brought the amended Radio and Television Act (RTVG) into force and adopted matching provisions in the Radio and Television Ordinance. According to the Federal Council's press release, an additional CHF 9 million will go to licensed local radio stations and regional television stations from 2027. The same release says revenue from the radio and television fee can now also fund "general support measures".
The amount is small. The structure is not, because it puts a compulsory household fee behind private commercial broadcasters and a wider category of media support.
The strongest case for the change
The case for the increase is serious. Local radio and regional TV carry the news that national outlets and global platforms skip: municipal budgets, cantonal votes, local courts. Advertising has migrated to a handful of platforms, and small broadcasters in a country with four language regions cannot reach the scale that would let them survive on the market alone. Switzerland already treats this as a public-service question, and a stable funding formula is better than ad hoc rescues.
Parliament also chose this route deliberately. The National Council's transport and telecommunications committee described the proposal as raising the stations' share of fee revenue from 4–6 percent to 6–8 percent, and as expanding general media-support measures. The Federal Council has not invented a new subsidy. It has set a number inside the band Parliament drew.
What actually changed
Press reports say the Federal Council set the share at 7 percent. Keystone-SDA reporting carried by blue News says this makes the additional CHF 9 million available, for a total of CHF 95 million, "according to the Federal Council". The same report gives 1 January 2027 as the start date. The official release itself says only "from 2027" and does not state the 7 percent or CHF 95 million figures, so those two numbers rest on press reporting.
The second change is arguably more consequential. Fee revenue can now fund general support measures. Blue News describes these as items such as training and continuing education for editorial staff. Swissinfo's consultation-stage coverage says the package also covers support for news agencies such as Keystone-SDA and self-regulatory bodies such as the Press Council. These are infrastructure subsidies, not payments for particular content, which is the safer design.
Where the risks sit
The free-speech risk of media subsidy does not come from the cheque. It comes from the discretion attached to it. Once a regulator decides which outlets are licensed, which training bodies qualify and which "general measures" count, the line between support and influence depends on procedure. The 2024 consultation already drew criticism, per Swissinfo, of extending the RTVG's scope to electronic media. That worry is separate from the money, but it points the same way: statutory reach tends to grow once a funding channel exists.
A second risk is pricing. A percentage-of-revenue formula, with a band of 6–8 percent, hands the executive a dial. The dial may be turned for sound reasons today. It still lets the state raise or lower a broadcaster's income by a rule that readers cannot easily audit. Local stations that depend on a fee share have a standing incentive not to antagonise whoever sets it.
A third risk is competitive neutrality. Fee-funded broadcasters compete for the same audiences and advertisers as digital-native outlets that receive nothing. A subsidy that rescues incumbents can slow the entry of new formats, such as newsletters, podcasts and independent video, that may serve local audiences better and cheaper.
A proportionate way to run it
None of this argues for reversing the decision. It argues for conditions on how the money is run. Three are worth pressing on the Federal Office of Communications (BAKOM), which administers the framework:
- Publish the criteria and the awards. Licence conditions, performance mandates and every grant under the general-support provisions should be public, with reasons, in a machine-readable list.
- Keep support content-neutral. Funding should attach to measurable outputs such as hours of local coverage, staffing and training delivered, not to editorial judgements about tone.
- Review the effect. A sunset or evaluation clause should test whether the extra CHF 9 million sustains local reporting or simply replaces other income. The test should also ask whether the support is open to newer, non-broadcast entrants.
Switzerland's approach deserves credit on one point. It funds through a transparent statutory fee, rather than leaning on platforms through must-carry or link-tax mandates that distort online markets elsewhere. That is the lower-risk route for an open internet, and other jurisdictions weighing media-support schemes could copy it.
The lesson for the sector is that the fight over this reform is not about CHF 9 million. It is about whether the machinery that distributes fee money is built for scrutiny. If BAKOM publishes its criteria and the awards, the extra funding can strengthen local news without handing the state leverage over it. If it does not, the larger share and the new general-support power will become a lever that later governments can use.