The U.S. Supreme Court denied a review sought by Charter of a 9th...

its failure to provide requested financial and other information. Charter had contended that the county had violated the franchise agreement and the First Amendment in denying consent to its transfer application for the 5,000 cable subscribers it took over in the county after its purchase of Sonic Cable TV. The Circuit Court had held that a cable operator’s ability to service its franchise adequately throughout its term, plus a fear of higher cable rates because of a higher-than-market sale price, were legitimate concerns for local franchising authorities that justified seeking more information on those issues. In the Supreme Court, the Solicitor Gen. submitted an amicus brief urging denial of certiorari. Although the Solicitor Gen. argued that the 9th Circuit’s “error in this case threatens to undermine important federal restrictions on cable regulation,” he said the questions raised hadn’t emerged in other appellate cases. “This court might benefit from further analysis by the courts of appeals of cases, like this one, in which a cable franchising authority is found have acted with mixed motives, some of which are lawful under federal law and some of which are not.” A Charter spokesman said that although the company was disappointed in the outcome, “our efforts did achieve much for Charter and for the cable industry.” He said the Solicitor Gen.’s brief as well as the Dist. Court. opinion had “clearly indicated” that LFAs weren’t permitted to “supplant their own wish list for federal principles.” Attorney Nicholas Miller, who represents municipalities, called the Supreme Court’s decision significant and likely to influence other circuit courts because it was “well written and consistent” with what other circuits had said.