Thursday, seven-thirtyish, The Globe on Boylston, across from Copley Square.

Have you signed that petition yet?

I agree with drz, who mentioned the riders’ unions in a comment earlier today.

There was news that a fare hike was definitely in the works as early as February 24th. And yet, not a peep from the Rider Oversight Committee (ROC), until–if I am not mistaken–May 15th–with publication of Jeremy Marin’s very ably argued open letter to the legislature on the issue. But that’s nearly three months. What might have been accomplished beyond an op-ed in the Metro in that time?

What is the ROC for, but to be in on this, and to proactively–not RE-actively–seek rider involvement in this process?

How have riders’ unions been coordinating their response? How have they been communicating with their constituents? How have they been reaching out to inform, solicit ideas, recruit? I’m genuinely curious. Please put me on your mailing list.

I agree wholeheartedly with Bryper that the T needs a blog. But where’s the ROC’s blog? Where are the riders’ unions’ blogs?

These are organizations actually charged with looking out for riders. Where were they back in February, and where are they now?

I happened to notice that a very prominent member of the local cabaret scene, and if I am not mistaken a founding member of the legndary Traniwreck(!!!), has signed the TJUSTICE PETITION, and I wanted to take a moment to personally thank her, and to mention that we can use PROTEST SINGERS on JUNE 6TH, and TJUSTICE TRANNIES and CABARET QUEENS, too, if any such are out there and want to cross-dress for The Cause.

So I had a little talk with a friend of mine about my little petition. She told me she thought I was a little off-message, somehow, and implied I may have become an MBTA tool in the process of pursuing this whole rally idea.

So I feel I should address the issue here.

First of all, the important thing to remember is that there are four parties that must be involved in the decision-making process here: the public, the legislature, the MBTA management, and the unions. Presently, the public feels alienated, the legislature has washed its hands of the matter of mass transit, and MBTA management is pleading helplessness against an immovable legislature and bullying unions. The unions, for their part, remain silent on the fare hikes, pointing mutely at the management, who says it has been left no choice by the legislature but to raise fares. It’s a classic case of passing the buck, as I’ve already said.

All parties must take responsibility, and all must have real power to influence the outcome of any negotiations on T funding. The public has gained a mostly symbolic place at the table, but the riders’ reps and unions have not been very proactive in communicating with their constituents, much less mobilizing them.

So as for negotiations–and here’s my friend’s point–it’s not only the manner in which the T is funded that’s broken. So saying the T needs more money doesn’t even begin to address the problem. My friend brought up the Big Dig. The government threw tons of money at it, and, honestly, it’s still a mess.

She is right, then, that in addition to the manner of funding, the culture of the MBTA needs to be reexamined and reformed. The relationship between T management and the unions is, erm, problematic, let’s call it. The T is run like a traditional bureaucracy, where self-preservation always trumps quality service. There is no transparency, and no trust. And the customer is too often looked at as the enemy.

So funding, management and maintenance are all issues that impact fares, and all need to be addressed in the long-term.

But let me tell you what I have learned so far in my very first, very brief, very pathetic, and hopefully very last foray into activist organizing:

1. Everybody’s got their own gripes, and their own separate agenda.

2. Nobody wants to take the first step, but when somebody does, one thing’s for sure: it’s gonna be a step in the wrong direction, according to everybody else.

3. You need organizations on board, not just individuals. The T sprang this on us and gave us very little time to organize. You’ve got groups like MassPIRG and Sierra Club, the T-riders’ unions, and organizations like Livable Streets that already have vast mailing lists. Not only can they get the word out much faster than a couple of bloggers, they also have a history of lobbying that lends legitimacy to any public action they promote or participate in. Without some of these groups’ active participation, you got nothin’. And if any of them oppose a public action, you got less than nothin’.

3. If the ball ever does get rolling, suddenly everybody’s got something to say, and some objection to a line, a word, or a period instead of a semicolon. I mean, individuals and groups. So then you have to hussle to make the appropriate compromises and try to retrofit your message without losing your focus, because…

4. …if you listen and amend your every statement, you end up with a rally with so general a message, no real and practical action can be taken. Yes, I support the Intergalactic Zen Peace Initiative and the World Hugs Fund, but right now I want to fix my T fares. That’s one step towards world peace, and we’ve got to take it one step at a time.

Just like in these MBTA hearings. There are always a number of people attending them who bring up some very specific incident from three or four years ago that they all the sudden want to address. At a recent MBTA Q&A, a guy got up and complained that one day, eight or nine months ago, there was no one in the token booth to help a certain person with a problem at the turnstile. The T representative at the meeting said he would like to know the station, the date and time, which is reasonable enough. Then after some very cursory probing, the complainant, I guess you’d call him, says, “well, maybe there was someone there, but the glass in the token booth is too dark.” There were several other comments like this. Which… you know, whatever. Let’s just agree that the service isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

The truth is, as my friend informed me after we’d hashed some of this out, her monthly combo was actually going to be cheaper with the fare restructuring, while my subway pass was going to go through the roof. So it’s no wonder she’s not all that into a demonstration against fare increases that minimally impact her. She feels it’s much more important to address management and labor.

But that’s simply not a battle I’m capable of waging. I mean if you can’t even get a consensus on fares among activist groups and organizations (many of whom have said they love the idea of a rally for fair fares–whatever those are–but not one of whom is willing to get onboard with it), then what do you think the case would be if you dragged the union issue into it?

“Yikes,” is about all I can say to that.

In fact, “Yikes” pretty much sums up this whole freakin’ project.

Remember to sign TJustice.info’s petition, HERE.

It will be sent to Massachusetts Senate President, Robert Travaglini, urging him to take up the issue of MBTA funding, so that we can head off the next round of fare hikes, which, I can assure you, are already in the works. Get in on this, and get your friends and colleagues in on it, too. It takes about thirty seconds. Imagine that: making a difference while sitting on your ass. It’s a wonderful world.

Jeff Rosenblum, of livablestreets, with whom I met briefly last Tuesday, I think it was, has told me that the Association for Public Transportation (APT) came out in favor of the fare increase at their annual meeting last week. Which gives me another opportunity to really hone my message: As I’ve said, I am more or less resigned to the current fare increase. I am not at all resigned to the next round of increases, and unless the public lobbies the legislature for real change in how the T is funded, we are looking at a spiral of higher fares and diminished services with no end in sight. It’s really that simple.

As for the rally at 4 o’clock in Copley Square on JUNE 6TH, well, what can I say that I haven’t already said?

As the date approaches, the plans sort of gain form. Basically what’s going to happen is, people will gather a little before four. Whoever shows up should come prepared to wave some signs and make some noise. (And, if you can, bring signs and noisemakers–and if anyone has a line on amplification equipment, let me know.) There may or may not be a speech by State Senator Jarret Barrios, and others, and at 4:30 those in attendance will be encouraged to go to the MBTA-sponsored hearing on the fare hikes at the Boston Public Library, which will be a big buzz kill, but that’s life. It can’t all be fun and games.

If you, too, have resigned yourself to current fare hikes, as I think many have, still realize that, as no less than Dan Grabauskas has said, the current hikes are necessary to maintain basic services, not to improve or enhance them. If the MBTA’s $8 billion debt is not addressed, and the legislature does not allow the T any other means to cover payments and higher operating costs than through fare increases, we will be looking at regular fare increases. The current increases are a quick fix, but unless the legislature addresses the issue again, another quick fix will be necessary for FY2008.

The MBTA cannot go to the legislature and ask for more money–it can only come to you and me.

So, if you think this fare increase is a little steep in some respects, but doable, that’s cool. But think ahead to ‘08 when we’ll be going through the same process again, but looking at $2.15 for one-way subway fare. Or, if you’re cool with that, to 2010, when it’ll be at least $2.60.

What’s being asked of you now is nothing. Sign a petition, email your represetnative, attend a rally or a meeting. Show your interest in an every-day issue. Big deal. But there are organizations and legislators out there who need to know you’re concerned. Once you’ve done you’re little part (at most about a three-hour commitment in toto, spread out over months), you can roll over and go back to sleep, just as I plan to do. And don’t hog the covers. I hate that.

By ADAM COHEN in the New York Times today[$]

The World Wide Web is the most democratic mass medium there has ever been. Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those who own one. Radio and television are controlled by those rich enough to buy a broadcast license. But anyone with an Internet-connected computer can reach out to a potential audience of billions.

This democratic Web did not just happen. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989, envisioned a platform on which everyone in the world could communicate on an equal basis. But his vision is being threatened by telecommunications and cable companies, and other Internet service providers, that want to impose a new system of fees that could create a hierarchy of Web sites. Major corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while little-guy sites could be shut out.

Sir Tim, who keeps a low profile, has begun speaking out in favor of “net neutrality,” rules requiring that all Web sites remain equal on the Web. Corporations that stand to make billions if they can push tiered pricing through have put together a slick lobbying and marketing campaign. But Sir Tim and other supporters of net neutrality are inspiring growing support from Internet users across the political spectrum who are demanding that Congress preserve the Web in its current form.

The Web, which Sir Tim invented as a scientist at CERN, the European nuclear physics institute, is often confused with the Internet. But like e-mail, the Web runs over the system of interconnected computer networks known as the Internet. Sir Tim created the Web in a decentralized way that allowed anyone with a computer to connect to it and begin receiving and sending information.

That open architecture is what has allowed for the extraordinary growth of Internet commerce and communication. Pierre Omidyar, a small-time programmer working out of his home office, was able to set up an online auction site that anyone in the world could reach — which became eBay. The blogging phenomenon is possible because individuals can create Web sites with the World Wide Web prefix, www, that can be seen by anyone with Internet access.

Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT&T sent shock waves through cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to “use my pipes free.” Internet service providers would like to be able to charge Web sites for access to their customers. Web sites that could not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or perhaps not be accessible at all.

A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers could, for example, shut out Web sites whose politics they dislike. Even if they did not discriminate on the basis of content, access fees would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.

Consider online video, which depends on the availability of higher-speed connections. Internet users can now watch channels, like BBC World, that are not available on their own cable systems, and they have access to video blogs and Web sites like YouTube.com, where people upload videos of their own creation. Under tiered pricing, Internet users might be able to get videos only from major corporate channels.

Sir Tim expects that there are great Internet innovations yet to come, many involving video. He believes people at the scene of an accident — or a political protest — will one day be able to take pictures with their cellphones that could be pieced together to create a three-dimensional image of what happened. That sort of innovation could be blocked by fees for the high-speed connections required to relay video images.

The companies fighting net neutrality have been waging a misleading campaign, with the slogan “hands off the Internet,” that tries to look like a grass-roots effort to protect the Internet in its current form. What they actually favor is stopping the government from protecting the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it.

But the other side of the debate has some large corporate backers, too, like Google and Microsoft, which could be hit by access fees since they depend on the Internet service providers to put their sites on the Web. It also has support from political groups of all persuasions. The president of the Christian Coalition, which is allied with Moveon.org on this issue, recently asked, “What if a cable company with a pro-choice board of directors decides that it doesn’t like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities?”

Forces favoring a no-fee Web have been gaining strength. One group, savetheinternet.com, says it has collected more than 700,000 signatures on a petition. Last week, a bipartisan bill favoring net neutrality, sponsored by James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, won a surprisingly lopsided vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Sir Tim argues that service providers may be hurting themselves by pushing for tiered pricing. The Internet’s extraordinary growth has been fueled by the limitless vistas the Web offers surfers, bloggers and downloaders. Customers who are used to the robust, democratic Web may not pay for one that is restricted to wealthy corporate content providers.

“That’s not what we call Internet at all,” says Sir Tim. “That’s what we call cable TV.”

MassPIRG has a petition up and running, too, that you could certainly sign, but note that the petitions are different. MassPIRG’s will be presented to the MBTA Board of Directors.

Mine–TJustice’s–will be presented to the President of the State Senate, Robert Travaglini. The reason for this is that, according to my sources at the MBTA and in other activist organizations, it is the STATE LEGISLATURE, not the MBTA that the public needs to lobby.

Expressing displeasure with the fare hike to the MBTA doesn’t hurt, of course–and by all means, you should sign MassPIRG’s petition–but unless the legislature gets involved, the MBTA will have no choice but to raise fares. Because the legislature has left them no choice.

There are many reasons to oppose fare hikes. If you want to know the truth, I have come to accept the current hikes. I think the idea of simplifying and standardizing fares across the board is a good one, and free transfers will bring Boston’s system in line, costwise, with the rest of the nation’s. Subway-only pass-holders will pay an undue price for this, but that’s life.

What I very much oppose is the next round of fare hikes. And if the legislature does not go back to the drawing board to address the MBTA’s debt, there will be another round, maybe as early as next year, certainly in ‘08. That’s clear.

So, while I encourage you to sign MassPIRG’s petition, I ask that you sign TJustice’s, too. They are not the same.

I’ve got a petition up and going HERE.

I’m working on a website as well, tjustice.info, but it’s very much in the first stages, so don’t expect too much at this point. Eventually, I’ll have succint, easy-to-read background information on the issue of the fare hikes, and very specific things you can do to lobby the legislature.

For now, check out the petition and pass it on. (And feel free to make suggestions in content, too.)

This just hit my in-box:

Dear SavetheInternet.com Member,

The fight for Internet Freedom took a major step in the right direction yesterday.

A bipartisan majority on the House Judiciary Committee passed the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act” — a good bill that would protect Network Neutrality and prohibit large phone and cable companies from turning the Internet into their private domain.

Yesterday’s vote is a milestone in our campaign. It would have been unthinkable just four weeks ago — when we lost a vote on Net Neutrality in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In the weeks since that first vote, we have ignited a prairie fire across America. And Washington is beginning to feel the heat:

● More than 700 groups from all 50 states are now a part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition - a diverse list that includes MoveOn.org, the Christian Coalition, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Consumers Union and the American Library Association.

● A-list musicians such as REM, Moby, The Roots and the Dixie Chicks have joined the coalition with many more to be announced soon.

● Major U.S. newspapers — including the San Jose Mercury News, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times and Houston Chronicle — have written editorials supporting our position.

● More than 5,000 bloggers have linked to the SavetheInternet.com Web site and blog — urging their readers to take action on this issue.

● And yesterday, the Coalition’s petition drive surpassed 750,000 signatures.

With little money and through the efforts of many, we have turned momentum against a handful of phone and cable giants that are spending untold millions of dollars to squash Internet freedom.

Through their high-priced lobbyists, slick ad campaigns and fake grassroots groups, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are trying to drown out genuine grassroots and consumer advocacy. Yesterday’s vote proves, however, that our voices are being heard. But we’re still far from saving Net Neutrality.

The full House will take up the bipartisan Judiciary bill in June. The Senate is also considering legislation that currently fails to protect Net Neutrality, though a bipartisan group of Senators are lining up behind an excellent bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota).

We need to continue to mobilize our resources, engage the public and put Congress on notice. I’ve added some links below to new information about the campaign. I’ll be soon sharing some new ideas as we proceed. I welcome your feedback.

But for now, take a moment to savor this win.

Thank you,

Timothy Karr
Free Press Campaign Director
SavetheInternet.com Coalition
tkarr@freepress.net

1. For regular updates on the campaign, read the SavetheInternet.com blog: www.savetheinternet.com/blog

2. Read our new report debunking the telco propaganda: Why Consumers Demand Internet Freedom (PDF).

3. Also yesterday, Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on behalf of the coalition. Read his statement (DOC).

4. Check out the pro-Net Neutrality ad sponsored by MoveOn and the Christian Coalition: http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/MoveOnChristianCoalition.pdf

An article in yesterday’s West Roxbury & Roslindale Transcript.

CORRECTION: As JUNE 6TH approaches, and we talk to organizations and public officials who have expressed interest in the idea of a rally, we’ve decided the best time for it is around 4 PM, BEFORE, not after, the MBTA HEARING at the BPL.

Please note that the rally and the boycott are not connected. You can certainly boycott if you wish, but we’d like to see a good turn-out at the rally regardless of who decides to boycott the T for a day. We’re trying to line up some speakers for the rally (one of our favorite State Senators, Jarrett Barrios, has said he’ll be there, if his schedule permits), and we’ve got every reason to believe local media will cover the event.

There will be folks in Copley Square ALL DAY (from 8 to 8) handing out materials on the fare hike, as well as easy-to-use postcards to send to legislators expressing the urgent need to address the funding issue.

If you are interested in stopping by and pitching in in any way, contact me at mmennonno@yahoo.com and let me know. I am still up for a brief beer-soaked organizing binge on Thursday, June 1st, but if you want to join me you need to RSVP ASAP.