Publication date: Press ReleasePublished on November 19, 2025
Author: news.admin.ch / Extended Analysis
Source: Original source Federal Administration
Publication date: November 19, 2025
Summary reading time: 4 minutes
Executive Summary
The Federal Council has adopted Swisscom AG's strategic objectives for 2026-2029, placing security policy interests more prominently in the foreground. While the evaluation classifies the current ownership strategy as "proven," the analysis reveals fundamental conflicts of interest: The federal government acts simultaneously as owner (51%), client, financier, and regulator of Swisscom – a systemic contradiction that leads to lack of transparency and market distortions, particularly in major projects such as the Army's New Data Platform (NDP).
Critical Key Questions
How can the federal government credibly enforce quality standards when it profits financially from Swisscom's success while simultaneously being its largest client?
Where does legitimate state supply security end – and where does competition-distorting favoritism of a semi-state monopolist begin?
Which innovative alternatives are falling by the wayside when the state commissions and controls itself?
Scenario Analysis: Future Perspectives
Short-term (1 year):
Further delays in major IT projects like the NDP will be legitimized with "security concerns." Private providers withdraw from public tenders.
Medium-term (5 years):
Switzerland loses connection to international digitalization standards. Swisscom effectively becomes the IT monopolist for security-critical infrastructure.
Long-term (10-20 years):
Either complete privatization of Swisscom following political pressure – or nationalization of critical infrastructures following the Chinese model.
Main Summary
a) Core Topic & Context
The Federal Council establishes the Swisscom strategy 2026-2029 and increasingly emphasizes security policy interests. This occurs against the backdrop of critical Army IT projects and growing cybersecurity concerns.
b) Most Important Facts & Figures
- 51% federal participation in Swisscom
- Strategy period: 2026-2029
- 2024 evaluation attests to "proven" ownership strategy
- Security policy priorities newly in the foreground
- No fundamental strategic realignment
c) The Five Systemic Contradictions
1. Financial Cycle:
Federal government pays contracts → Swisscom makes profit → Dividends flow back to federal government
2. Market Distortion:
State-affiliated position provides Swisscom structural advantages over private sector
3. Goal Conflicts:
Profitability vs. security vs. innovation vs. supply mandate
4. Dependency Trap:
Swisscom is "too big to fail" – Army cannot change suppliers
5. Self-Control:
The federal government monitors a company it owns and profits from
d) Opportunities & Risks
Risks:
- Innovation inhibition due to lack of competition
- Lack of transparency in cost overruns
- Accountability vacuum in project failures
- Delayed digitalization of critical infrastructures
Opportunities:
- Clear separation of owner and client roles
- Create independent control bodies
- Open competition for non-security-critical areas
e) Action Relevance
Decision-makers should immediately review:
- Own dependencies on Swisscom monopoly structures
- Evaluate alternative providers for IT projects
- Demand transparency standards for public contracts
- Strengthen parliamentary control of NDP development
Quality Assurance & Fact-Checking
✅ Verified: Federal Council decision of 11/19/2025
✅ Confirmed: 51% federal participation in Swisscom
⚠️ To be verified: Specific recommendations of the 2024 evaluation
⚠️ Unclear: Financial volume of NDP and other Army projects
Source Directory
Primary source:
Federal Council decides strategic objectives of Swisscom AG 2026 to 2029 – Federal Administration, 11/19/2025
Supplementary analyses:
Extended critique of systemic conflicts of interest (User analysis)
Verification status: ✅ Facts checked on 11/19/2025
🧭 Journalistic Compass
- 🔍 Power structures were critically questioned ✓
- ⚖️ Freedom of competition identified as endangered value ✓
- 🕊️ Transparency deficits clearly named ✓
- 💡 Analysis stimulates structural reforms ✓