In article <[log in to unmask]>,
Guy Hermann  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>A commercial service offers:
 
>1) a single 800 number for enrollment, software, and support
>2) graphical software for multiple platforms to access the service
>   with a single, consisten user interface
>3) technical assistance provided by the service
>4) 30 days or a number of hours of free enrollment to "try before you buy"
>5) technical support for the organization setting up the forum
>6) local dial in numbers in almost every part of the country
>   even areas away from big cities (like ours)
>7) all of this in one comprehensive package
 
OK. These are all great service features. But, I don't think they
explain why a discussion list would best reside _within_ the _same_
service provider.  If a discussion list, such as ASTC, were set up as a
LISTSERV, such as MUSEUM-L is, then the above commercial service
provider, who provides email access to/from the Internet, would
presumably give its patrons all of the above seven advantages _and_
access to the LISTSERV discussion, right?
 
So, the question returns to "what are the compelling services that the
commercial provider is giving to the ASTC discussion list manager (as
contrasted _to_ ASTC's subscribers)?"  And, "what are the services of
the commercial service to the discussion participant that _distinguish_
it (in a compelling way) from those which simply provide that
participant with access to email from Internet-based discussion lists?"
 
By compelling, I mean what services are so overwhelming that the
discussion manager would be compelled to select the commercial provider
over a discussion list provider that gives "the rest of us" access to
the discussions via our LISTSERV and Usenet newsgroups (i.e., without
having to subscribe to the commercial service)?
 
>it would be interesting to scan the membership list of Museum-L to see how
>many subscribres do so through AOL or Compuserve.
 
Exactly my point! Those who find AOL or CS to be their best (or only)
access service are free to choose them, _and_ they get to
read/contribute to MUSEUM-L too. And, so do the "rest of us."
 
(Yes, I know (suspect) that there are a number of fine services for the
discussion _manager_ which are also provided by the commercial vendors.
But, since I don't use/subscribe, I leave it to those who know more
about them to list the [compelling] ones. Some of these advantages have
been mentioned in past postings, but it would be nice to have them
collected together, added to if there're more, and to carefully separate
out the discussion list manager advantages from those offered to the
list participant. I'm not arguing for one or the other topology here, but
just trying to get clarification of factual information; I agree with
Rob G's and others' comments that ultimately we should let the chips
fall as they may, examining promising possibilities along the way.)
Peter Rauch