Which service cannot substitute for in-person interpreting services according to the FCC?

The reason Video Relay Service (VRS) cannot substitute for in-person interpreting services, according to the FCC, is due to the specific nature and requirements of interpreting in certain contexts, particularly those involving sensitive or complex communications. VRS primarily serves deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals who use video technology to communicate with hearing individuals, relaying conversations through a sign language interpreter. However, it lacks the immediacy and presence that a face-to-face interpreter provides, which can be crucial in scenarios where non-verbal cues, emotional context, and immediate feedback are important.

In-person interpreting allows interpreters to assess and respond to the nuances of a conversation in real-time, which can be particularly significant in medical, legal, or educational situations. This level of interaction and understanding can be lost when relying solely on video technology, such as VRS. The other options, while they may offer remote interpreting solutions, also have varying levels of effectiveness and may not adequately fulfill the need for in-person interpreting when the situation demands it.