I appreciate the opportunity to address this matter.  The agreement reached between the City of Knoxville and Knology and later approved by Council in 2008 called for specific investment in build -outs and other activities and submission of reports.  Knology has fully complied with their legal obligations. 

Council was provided a full report on status of build-outs on March 4, 2009. This detailed report included a summary of all quarterly reports filed by Knology. These reports showed them to be in full compliance with their agreement with the City on build outs, connections to community centers, and reporting requirements. In re: CTV, they are now regulated by the TRA under their state franchise agreement and pursuing, but not yet achieving live coverage of  meetings carried on CTV.  Even though the City is no longer a party to requirements to broadcast CTV we have continued to urge Knology to work as quickly as possible to broadcast meetings on a real-time basis.

The report sent to Council was conveyed in both hard copy and by email with a cover memorandum from Larry Martin. This memo concluded with "Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this agreement."

In the nine months subsequent to forwarding of this memo to Council we received no response. Not only did we not receive any questions; we received no requests for Knology to appear. The issue of their appearance had been raised in a Council discussion back in 2008 when the amended agreement later passed by Council was being discussed. At that time representatives of Knology said they would be glad to return to Knoxville at any time to appear before Council to discuss progress.

Subsequent to our providing Council with the summary report and inviting questions, Knology leaders asked if it was necessary for them to come to Knoxville and appear before Council to discuss their progress. Having not received either any feedback from anyone on Council, and not having received a request for them to appear, we indicated that we did not thing the time and expense of such a trip was necessary.  In addition, no Council member had contacted Knology with a request to appear. 

To conclude, in the nine months since filing a full report that showed Knology in compliance with their contract, neither the administration nor Knology has received a single request from a single councilmember for either an appearance or for additional information.

As we stated in a correspondence to Council last week, the decision not to take Knology up on their offer to come to Council to explain their progress was Larry Martin’s and mine. Any blame belongs with us. The reason for our decision was the lack of any response from Council to the information we had sent. 

Unfortunately this whole episode has led to incorrect media articles and editorials continuing the narrative that Knology was out of compliance, avoiding reporting requirements,  and recalcitrant about appearing before Council. They were also accused of avoiding CTV meetings. At last night’s council meeting Councilman Hall did apologize for those charges, which were incorrect as well.  We very much appreciate Councilman Hall’s statement.

 Last week we emailed Council to explain the points addressed here. I appreciate this opportunity to hopefully put an end to the unfortunate mischaracterizations regarding Knology’s compliance with their obligations and the City administration's oversight of the agreement.  Obviously we have not been successful in getting this discussion to a reality based level. This is regrettable, not only because any incorrect narrative is damaging to all involved, but because any damage –unfortunately including undeserved damage - to Knology’s reputation has the effect of their being less successful in their build-out and less able to provide competition in the marketplace.  That is the stated goal that we all share. 

Thank you.

Post updated with response from Council Member Rob Frost...

 And when Dr. Lyons does Knology intend to offer service to the residents of South Knoxville?  As I recall, Knology practically admitted before the City Council they have no intention to bring their service to South Knoxville.  The Administration has glossed over this statement and to my knowledge, has never addressed it.  It would be nice for the Haslam Administration to press this with the same kind of fervor they display in defending Knology.  I would be very interested to have an answer to this question.

 I've heard the story again and again about the adverse capital markets faced by Knology and other cable companies, yet at the same time Knology was not building at all in Knoxville and Knox County, they had the financial resources to buy other markets across the country without spending a penny of that money here.  Considering that it's been about ten years, I don't know at how much a later date South Knoxville could receive the benefit of Knology service.  It seems to me regardless of how one wishes to look at it, Knology certainly benefitted from statewide regulation of the cable industry and that was likely what they hoped for in any event, which of course means the City of Knoxville lost whatever advantage it had at the time.  Your argument comes down to the City of Knoxville either forcing them out of the Knoxville market or allowing them to remain in business here so folks in West Knoxville and a few in North Knoxville will enjoy the benefit of cable television competition while the rest of us are in a virtual monopoly situation.  A difficult situation to be sure, but I heard the comments made by the representative of Knology at the Council meeting at the time and it was quite clear they don't intend to offer anything to or for South Knoxville in the near future, if at all.  I also don't think giving free cable service to community centers is any kind of substitute for serving entire communities, much less anything tangible to brag about.  Both the city and county governments seem to find providing free things to community centers to be something to dazzle the public but I'm not impressed.  The mission of the government should be to see the public served, not government operated centers.  Dr. Lyons what city officials seem to fail to understand in this instance is that for people like me, Knology going out of business in Knoxville would mean nothing at all.  We would be better off with AT&T who has the resources to compete city-wide with Comcast and letting Knology go out of business.  Knology has richly deserved the bad publicity it has received.

 Dr. Lyons I understand the notion the City of Knoxville did not wish to put Knology out of business.  While I like Mayor Haslam and think he's done a good job, I don't consider the Knology negotiations to be the City of Knoxville government's finest hour by any means.  As I recall, the vote on the City Council was 5-4 with Councilwoman Barbara Pelot switching her vote, after swearing up and down she'd never do so.  Councilman Joe Hultquist also did so and his reasons remain a mystery as there was certainly nothing in it for South Knoxville.  Obviously the City Council's own opinion was quite divided and as to negotiation, I think it is very difficult to negotiate with anyone who doesn't negotiate in good faith.  Knology's record of keeping faith with their agreements is something less than stellar.  I certainly understand your desire to defend the position taken by the City Administration, but yes, I am completely underwhelmed.  I also find the notion of the city and county governments trumpeting free service to community centers as merely a way of attempting to draw attention from the many thousands of folks who do not receive the benefit of any such service.  The fact is, Knology, despite what they might claim, has only served a FRACTION of the population of the City of Knoxville.  The action taken by the City of Knoxville government certainly was good for those folks, but the decision for the majority of people who receive no service was merely the hope that "some day" Knology would offer them service.  The people in South Knoxville, East Knoxville, most of North Knoxville and yes, Sequoyah Hills do not receive the same special offers Comcast and Knology offer in those areas they compete.  Apparently it never occurred to anyone in the City to put into agreements with ALL the cable companies that any special offer offered must be offered equally in the the area where the franchise exists.  That would have at least be of some help to folks, but instead we have free internet and cable television at community centers.  Fabulous!  My point of view is contrary to your own and that of the Haslam Administration.  I saw no reason to negotiate with Knology at all.  Considering it was quite evident cable television was going to be regulated entirely from Nashville, the City putting Knology out of business would have been a minor inconvenience until AT&T came in to compete.  Why not let those folks in the areas Knology serves do what the rest of us are doing - - - waiting for competition?  It certainly would have sent a message to companies who intend to do business here that they must fulfill every aspect of their agreement with the city government.  At some point, fully six members of the City Council, out of nine, felt Knology wasn't keeping their word, so I think it isn't unreasonable for me to state that is my own impression from observing the debate and the facts.  I can't imagine that you feel people in South Knoxville and other areas of the City who remain in the thrall of a monopoly aren't going to celebrate the agreement you reached with Knology.  You are far too intelligent a man to expect that for there are many of us who realized the agreement did nothing for us.  Dr. Lyons, I do appreciate the work you and other city officials do and don't let the fact I disagree with you on this particular issue to make you feel otherwise.  In fact, I expect I will vote for Mayor Haslam for Governor.