Today's Supreme Court ruling about the future of Aereo is not about TV or cable or how much it should cost to watch Sunday Night Football. It isn't about cable costing $8 or $80 or $800. It is barely about TV at all.

This is about a handful of companies owning the pipes that run underneath your house, then owning all of the content streamed through those pipes, then selling all of the advertising in between that content.

This is about what happens when another person has a message that runs directly against one of those companies, but can't get his or her voice heard because it is too expensive or against a policy cited by the company.

This is about what happens when another company wants to compete with Comcast and Disney, but Comcast and Disney have too much influence over our nation's capital.

This is about what happens when a Supreme Court grows too old or indifferent to understand it, let alone stop it.

This is about whether companies have grown too big and too unwieldy and too powerful to contest, and if that means the American experiment is failing because of that growth.

American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. is about what happens when the little guy throws a punch at the ankles of a giant. Is it heroism if no one can see him?

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

"Antonin Scalia did not know that users could not receive HBO using an over-the-air antenna." http://t.co/o3twU00KjG — Stefan Becket (@becket) April 22, 2014

So what happened to the analog TV spectrum?

If the Supreme Court rules against the telecoms, David doesn't think this will thwart the suppression of newer, better tech. The telecoms will keep trying. It will not stop a few massive corporations from trying to become even more massive.

But it will be a temporary pain in their asses, and it might get a few people to start seeing the long con that has become hegemonization of media in the United States.

"I'm talking about a handful of media companies controlling the flow of information and the world," says David.

The much vaunted fight for net neutrality, for example, is born of the same fight. Media companies like Comcast and Verizon don't want to inhibit speech because it is unpopular — they want to inhibit speech because it isn't expensive enough.

Their aim is to create the same sort of tiered system on the Internet that has allowed for record profits for cable companies, despite declining subscriber numbers.

The only way to do that is to stop those declining subscriber numbers. And their first step is stopping Aereo.

"It goes beyond what movies you watch, what videos you watch on the Internet, what TV shows you're watching," says David. "It's about shaping what public opinion is. It's about a handful of individuals who get to control the packaging of information, which companies get to have a message, and where you get to watch it or read it or hear about it. It's about controlling the whole nine."

So is the United States Supreme Court really pro-business, or is it just pro-corporation? It might come down to American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

"If Aereo doesn't win this, it eats away at the rights of the innovator. It eats away at the rights of speech," says David. "It eats away at the First Amendment."

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io