In order to decide to what extent the SRG can be considered a monopoly, one would actually have to examine the individual markets in which it is active in detail. The fact checkers do not undertake this ambitious attempt. Instead, they prefer to shift the focus from the question of whether the SRG is quasi-monopolistic to the question of whether it can or should be. The subjective answer to this subjective question is given by Guido Keel, director of the Institute for Applied Media Studies australia rcs data in Winterthur: "According to Guido Keel, speaking of a market when it comes to media is problematic," since it is ultimately "a public good" whose "benefits cannot be limited to those who pay for it." This is exactly the argument normally used to justify why only and exclusively the SRG can provide public service in the media sector: as a state monopoly to correct (alleged) market failure.
Statement is estimated at 30 percent, completely arbitrarily. Why? One would like to know.
SVP National Councillor Lukas Reimann is the second person to go through the "fact check": "Not only the SRG can apply for the 1.35 billion francs that will be released, but anyone, innovative start-ups, new companies, internet companies can vie for the money that will be released. This will create new jobs in sectors and companies that are not currently privileged by the state."