I haven't read all of the comments around this topic as I simply don't have the time, but might this be about Boxee not having the systems in place to allow Hul

I haven't read all of the comments around this topic as I simply don't have the time, but might this be about Boxee not having the systems in place to allow Hulu to properly pay local affiliates a portion of the revenue generated from commercials? Or perhaps Hulu doesn't want to pay out a portion to local affiliates? I appreciate Fred's argument re: it's just a browser, but Boxee is optimized and intended for watching on a TV. If people are watching Boxee shows on their TV, then they're not watching and/or DVR-ing the local affiliate versions which might have local advertising, etc. (true that most DVR people skip commercials, but some don't). Thus local affiliates could argue that Boxee makes Hulu a direct competitor for their local TV viewing audiences. I would argue, naively, that this is why you don't see nation-wide NBC, FOX, and CBS channels on your cable box -- because it would cannibalize affiliate revenue. But that, in effect, is what Boxee is creating. I wonder if it would make a difference if Hulu were share revenue (or more revenue as the case may be) with local affiliates and put systems in place to allow affiliates to insert local advertising into shows based on a Boxee user's location. This, of course, doesn't matter for CNN, for example, because all of the money goes into a single pot: The CNN pot. But that's not true with NBC, Fox, etc. I don't think. Correct? The one hole in my theory is AppleTV -- you can buy broadcast shows on Apple TV, but perhaps the fact that they're commercial-free somehow makes a difference or gets around a contractual obligation.