On 9 September 2026 the Federal Council adopted its dispatch to Parliament on the Broadband Promotion Act, creating a temporary programme to fund fibre-optic or wireless roll-out in sparsely populated areas. The English-language release from the Federal Council, with BAKOM as the responsible office, is brief: it asks Parliament for a CHF 365 million commitment credit for 2030–2037 and sets out the main eligibility conditions. The German-language release and press coverage fill in the detail, and the design is better than most state broadband schemes. One feature is a real risk, though.
The strongest case for intervening
The case for subsidy is strong. The Federal Council's German release says about ten percent of Swiss households and businesses are not connected to modern broadband networks. The stated goal is near-nationwide coverage with fixed connections of at least 1 Gbit/s download. It adds that copper access lines still in use are to be phased out gradually during the 2030s, which raises the stakes for places the market will not serve. According to cash.ch, Switzerland's fibre-to-the-building coverage was 50% in 2024, against 69% in the EU. Operators build where customers are dense, and a mountain hamlet may never repay the digging.
A country that is rich, mountainous and politically committed to equal living conditions across regions can reasonably decide that a gigabit connection is basic infrastructure. If copper is retired and nothing replaces it, some residents lose service they have today. That is a real cost, and a pro-market position should say so.
What the bill gets right
According to the German release, the programme targets only areas where providers would not build profitably. Aid is limited to the minimum necessary. Fibre has priority, but where fibre is extremely costly, terrestrial radio infrastructure can be funded instead. Cash.ch quotes Federal Councillor Albert Rösti estimating that about 7% of unconnected buildings would get fibre and the other 3% radio.
These are the choices that separate a useful subsidy from a windfall for incumbents.
- Gap-filling, not displacement. Subsidising only unprofitable areas limits the risk of crowding out private investment. Cash.ch reports that BAKOM says the funding covers only a project's expected loss, which prevents windfall effects.
- Technology flexibility. Allowing radio where fibre is prohibitively expensive acknowledges that the last few per cent of buildings cost disproportionately more. A strict fibre-only mandate would have inflated the bill.
- Open access. Cash.ch reports that operators must give competing providers access to subsidised infrastructure. Publicly funded networks should not become private monopolies, and wholesale access keeps retail prices and services contestable.
- Sunset. The programme is temporary. The Federal Council's German release says it runs eight years, extendable once by up to three years if funds remain.
The revised draft also responded to consultation feedback. Cash.ch reports that cantons and municipalities asked for less bureaucracy, and that binding building permits are now needed only before payout rather than at application. That is a sensible fix, since requiring permits for projects that may never be funded wastes local administrative effort.
The money and the cantonal condition
The German release puts the total at up to CHF 730 million. The federal government supplies half, CHF 365 million, under a commitment credit covering 2030 to 2037. The source is expected to be future mobile licence fees, so the programme needs no general tax revenue. Bluewin confirms that the other half falls on participating cantons and municipalities, voluntarily.
The release also states that each project requires the canton to cover half of the funding. Municipalities and cantons take part voluntarily, but cantonal participation is a precondition for federal co-financing. Rösti called this "a classic division of tasks between the Confederation and the cantons" and said no one would be forced to invest.
The principle of shared cost is defensible. Local buy-in discourages gold-plated requests, and cantons know their terrain. But the practical effect is regressive. The communities with the weakest tax bases and the most remote buildings face the highest per-connection costs, and they are the ones that must find matching money. A wealthy canton can unlock federal funds easily; a poor one may decline. Cash.ch notes that criticism of the cantonal share remains after consultation. If the programme's purpose is to close the last ten percent, a funding rule that favours richer applicants works against that purpose.
The reported figures also leave a gap. Cash.ch cites around 650,000 buildings in 600 municipalities that could be upgraded. That implies an average public contribution per building well above what urban fibre costs. Parliament should require transparent per-connection benchmarks and publish the outcomes, so that the cost of each additional connection can be judged against the radio alternative.
What Parliament should do
First, keep the open-access obligation intact. It is the most pro-competition element in the bill, and lobbying will probably push to weaken it.
Second, test the cantonal 50% rule against reality. One option is a graduated federal share that rises for cantons with low fiscal capacity, so the rule does not decide which regions get coverage. Another is a reporting requirement showing which cantons opted in, so a later extension can fix gaps with evidence rather than assumption.
Third, stay technology-neutral in practice. Fixed wireless and satellite-adjacent options keep improving. If radio can deliver reliable gigabit-class service at a fraction of the fibre price in the most difficult terrain, the law should let municipalities choose it without a bureaucratic penalty.
Fourth, protect the sunset. Temporary programmes tend to become permanent. A clear end date, with extension tied to measured unmet need, keeps this a one-time correction of a market gap and not a standing subsidy.
Bottom line
The dispatch avoids the common mistakes: it does not subsidise areas the market already serves, it does not mandate one technology, and it requires access for rivals. The weakness is the condition that cantons match funds. Switzerland should not spend CHF 730 million and then find the people most in need of a connection are in the cantons least able to ask for it. Parliament has time before the 2030 start to fix that.