You can't have a cable that transmits video and does not charge. Even when using USB-C for video, e.g. displayport, it negotiates through a USB 2.0 connection which guarantees 5V @ 500mA.
There is nothing, however, stopping a manufacturer from making USB-C cables with very fine-gauge power conductors[1]: electrons could flow, and a data connection could be negotiated, but resistive losses at high power consumption would cause the voltage to sag below the minimum of 4.40V.
Such a cable would not be standards-compliant, since USB-C cables are required to be able to carry 3 Amperes at 20V. However, for pure data-transfer purposes, the cable would work fine, and be cheaper that fully-compliant cables.
[1] After all, a full-featured cable needs to fit 16 (!) conductors, and the shield, into one flexible cable.
> [1] After all, a full-featured cable needs to fit 16 (!) conductors, and the shield, into one flexible cable.
I only have two real USB-C cables (that can do DPoUSB-C and PD, all other cables only do power and USB 2.0), both of them a really stiff, even more so than a thin DisplayPort cable.
Yeah, it's annoying if you want a number of watts that's specifically between 60 and 100. The vast majority of cables are limited to 60. But that's a far cry from being unable to charge things!
