North Kansas City (not to be confused with Kansas City) officials believe broadband is a utility that should be provided to everyone. As such, they're taking casino revenues to build a city-wide fiber network, though Time Warner Cable lawyers may put an end to the project.

The idea was to create a fiber ring, which would not only serve businesses, but also provide networked video IP cameras to aid in law enforcement. Costing around $10 million dollars, the project was largely supported because it wasn't pulling from taxpayer funds, instead relying on the city's casino revenue.

After the initial connections, the project chief, Bob Jewell, hoped to create Wi-Fi networks accessible by city patrol cars. He even had plans for a city-wide easily accessible database for city building schematics, making it easier for city Fire departments to have a better understanding of building layouts before arrival.

Eventually, the city could turn to providing triple play services to city residents, including phone, cable and broadband internet. Such a move would allow the project to finance itself in the future without draining city coffers should casino revenue dry up.

But none of that may ever happen.

Time Warner Cable this week sued the city, claiming the plan violates state law. According to Missouri law, a municipal entity who plans on providing telecom services to consumers must put the plan to a vote. Who lobbied and doled out campaign contributions to state lawmakers to have that law put in place? SBC.

There's a reason Time Warner Cable and SBC love a public vote, and it isn't an affection for Democratic process.

As we've seen in Illinois, flush with unlimited funds, incumbents can unleash waves of misleading PR on a community. By painting many projects as tax-gobbling fiscal failures (throw threats of government surveillance in for good measure), it's not difficult to scare off voters and crush competitive threats.

Are such votes worthwhile if muni-planners can be outspent by a margin of ninety to one? Isn't that like a presidential campaign featuring a Harvard grad with a network of wealthy friends, versus a middle class retired steel worker?

North Kansas City has already spent $600,000 to interconnect city buildings. Time Warner's lawsuit requests the project be halted until it can be put to a vote. City officials, already familiar with incumbent efforts to ban such projects in the state, weren't shocked by the lawsuit.

"They're worried," says North Kansas City mayor Gene Bruns to the Kansas City Star. "They should be. It's called free enterprise." "Private interests will do what they can do and we'll do what we feel we're obligated to do," says Bruns.

City attorney Tom Barzee says interest in the project has been overwhelmingly positive. "We had CEOs of the biggest businesses in town asking us, pleading with us to do this," he tells the Star. "You know how many negative responses we got? One — from Time Warner."

The battle in Missouri only emboldens the questions brought up in Philadelphia earlier this month about who is in charge of our political process when it comes to city infrastructure improvements.