4 ms·
Could you try encoding data as images for better bandwidth (and probably worse latency)?
by cyclotron3k 4y ago
Could you try encoding data as images for better bandwidth (and probably worse latency)?
- allanrbo 4y agoImages are often blocked on the free WhatsApp on airplanes
- cyclotron3k 4y agoI wonder how that's implemented if all the traffic is encrypted. Presumably images are sent via a different domain or IP address?
- blowski 4y agoMessage size, perhaps.
- ISL 4y agoAnd volume.
- codetrotter 4y agoI was on a boat recently where WhatsApp was free to use, and you had to pay to use the rest of the internet. You could send and receive messages but attempting to send an image, which wasn’t even all that big in size, did not work on the free connection. It must be either message size, or WhatsApp using a separate host name for attachments.
- zorr 4y agoI would not be surprised if the free WA messaging is implemented by whitelisting the signaling ports and domains (XMPP or similar) which only handle text content and small inline attachments. While larger images are uploaded and fetched out of band (HTTP or similar) with only a URL or reference passing over the signaling channel.
- Thlom 4y agoThey probably use some deep packet inspection on shore side firewall which blocks audio/video. Quite normal on congested satellite connections. Most “next-generation” firewall providers have predefined signatures for WhatsApp file transfer.
- projektfu 4y agoDuring the Facebook outage of a few years ago, WhatsApp messages still worked but I couldn't send an image. I think images are uploaded to Facebook-related servers and messages are through a separate real-time infrastructure, and it's likely that the message includes the fuzzy thumbnail and a url for the image from the other server.
- tambourine_man 4y agoPerhaps the client knows it’s on a free internet tire and blocks anything other than text. Much easier to implement than encrypted package inspection.