I'm of two minds on this issue, and I wonder if someone can explain if there is a basis for Charter's claims in common law.
Some things are meant to be shared: your car is entitled to just as much space in the lane as mine. I pay a road tax with every gallon of gas that I buy, as you do, and in theory our shared payments are used to keep the roads in good repair, with motorists who drive farther paying more for fuel and therefore contributing more in taxes toward road wear and tear.
In like manner, rights of way and access to them are assigned to private companies in order to achieve public benefits: it's difficult to imagine a telephone pole without any electric wires at the top, and those poles use rights-of-way next to public streets because they prevent children from being electrocuted.
But, every profit-making enterprise is always trying to increase its profits, an so it goes in this case. Charter's claims amount to a demand that their stockholders enjoy the investments that phone and electric company shareholders made in poles, siting, construction, maintenane, local license fees, accident repairs, and all the other expenses that go with having infrastructure in the first place.
Charter doesn't want to contribute to those costs, even though the body politic had to forego the taxes or other income that could have been collected when they were erected so many years ago. I think that it's time for the taxpayers to get their share.
Bill