Charter, Maine at Odds Over Time Warner Significance in Prorating Fight
Charter Communications and Maine disagree on what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's 1995 Time Warner decision means for the cable company's challenge to Maine's cable prorating law (see 2005210004). "Rate structure" in that decision is defined…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
entirely differently than how Charter is defining it in its opposition to Maine's motion to dismiss, and thus no support for its argument, the state said Tuesday in a supplemental brief (in Pacer, docket 20-cv-00168) in support of its motion to dismiss. It told the U.S. District Court in Bangor the prorating law isn't rate regulation because it lets Charter charge whatever it wants to as long as it's providing cable services, and it's when that service is canceled that the state legislature uses "its traditional police powers to protect its citizens from having to pay for cable services they will never receive." Charter in a brief (in Pacer) last week said Time Warner confirms that regulation of rate structure is rate regulation, and thus not allowed under the Cable Act when there's effective competition. It said the Maine law, contrary to state claims, affects pricing of Charter rates by blocking Charter from offering different daily and monthly rates.