I think it is another waste of taxpayer money to benefit big business and get people to spend more money they don't have.

The U.S. government is always concerned for its citizens, that they are happy and entertained, so I think it is nice.

IMO it's something they're feeding to the public to take their attention away from bigger issues. After all, who cares about politics when you can watch NFL in HD DIGITAL?!

Can you site a source? I understand they made HD mandatory for broadcasters by 2009, but had not heard that. Give me a source to the claim please. ---- Updated answer This isn't stupid, this is fucking stupid. First the Congress says all broadcasts must be digital and then they realize it might inconvenience people and their TV reception. They should just repeal the damn law, but no - the fix is to supply everyone with a converter box. This is just dumb! Congress is taking from me to give to someone for TELEVISION!!!!!! Not healthcare which is a debatable service, not welfare, which is a debatable service, but Fucking TV????????

It is a good deal and it is realistic. With the growth of cell phones and wireless technologies, they need the bandwidth. Here is a link: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/

i think its dumb and a waste of money DR me if you must

In NYS they provide cable TV service to people on welfare! The prisoners riot if you take away their TV programming!

That $1.5 billion seems like a grossly exaggerated figure. So let us make our own, shall we? The population of the US is 300 million. Now let us assume that every person is living with another person and making a "household", so that is 150 million households. The coupon is valued at $40, two per household. Now, let's assume that nobody has cable and every household, with 2 TVs, gets their TV from an antenna AND all their TVs are more than 10 years old, so every household gets an $80 coupon. That is $1.2 billion. Do you see how ridiculous that 1.5 billion number is now? I'll go one step further, we'll continue with our assumption that there are 150 million households, but now let's just say that people in New York, Florida, California, and Texas have all purchased TVs in the last 10 years - and we're still assuming nobody has cable. Those four states I mentioned make up 1/3rd of the US population, so that $1.2 billion number is now $800 million. So, assuming nobody has cable and everyone gets their TV via antenna - AND only 1/3rd of the population has purchased a TV recently (newer TVs have a built in digital converter and won't have any problems), then that number is half. Oh, we're also assuming that everyone knows about this rebate program. Now, let's be realistic. I'd say at least 80% of the population has - at least - a relatively new TV or cable. I'll even assume everyone knows about this rebate program, and we'll go with 100 million households - which is the number according to the US Census Bureau. So, that's 20 million households all getting an $80 rebate (max rebate per household) and that number is $160 million. Practically one tenth of that 1.5 billion number. So, I'm fine with it, knowing realistically that number is well under $200 million.

What a rip... People can get their TV signal, but they can't get healthcare?? How can you NOT see this as skewed priorities??