WebRTC has been around for over a decade. Millions of people use it daily without knowing. Yet myths persist about how it works and what it can do.

Let's clear up the biggest misconceptions.

Myth #1: "WebRTC is only for video calls"

What people think: WebRTC = Zoom alternative. Video calling technology. That's it.

Reality: Video calling is just one use case. Maybe not even the most interesting one.

What WebRTC actually does:

Data channels: Send any data peer-to-peer. Files, game state, chat messages, sensor data, whatever.

Screen sharing: Your screen is just video. WebRTC handles it.

File transfer: Direct peer-to-peer. No upload to servers.

IoT communication: Your security camera talking to your phone.

Gaming: Multiplayer game state synchronization.

Live streaming: Low-latency broadcasting.

Remote control: Controlling devices remotely in real-time.

The weird uses:

Drone piloting: Real-time video and control signals for drones.

Remote surgery: Surgeons controlling robotic arms remotely.

Distributed computing: Browsers talking to each other to share processing load.

Blockchain communication: Some crypto projects use WebRTC for peer-to-peer networking.

Agricultural sensors: Farm equipment sending data directly to farmers' phones.

Video calling? That's just scratching the surface.

Myth #2: "WebRTC is less secure than traditional platforms"

What people think: Peer-to-peer = dangerous. Data going directly between devices = hackers' paradise.

Reality: WebRTC is often MORE secure than traditional platforms.

Why it's actually secure:

Mandatory encryption: WebRTC requires encryption. Not optional. Every connection is encrypted by default.

End-to-end by design: Your data goes directly to recipient. Nobody in the middle can see it.

No central point of failure: Traditional platforms? Hack the server, compromise everyone. WebRTC? Each connection is independent.

Open source: Security researchers have examined the code. Vulnerabilities get found and fixed.

What about IP addresses?

The concern: "WebRTC leaks your IP address!"

Reality: Of course it does. You're making a direct connection. The other person needs to know where to connect.

That's not a bug. That's how networking works.

If you need anonymity: Use a VPN. Problem solved.

Compared to "secure" alternatives:

Zoom (historically): Had major security issues. "Zoombombing" was a thing. Routing through servers that could see everything.

Skype: Microsoft can see your calls. Governments have requested and received access.

Traditional platforms: Have been hacked. Data breaches happen. Server vulnerabilities exploited.

WebRTC: Fewer attack vectors. Direct connections are harder to intercept than centralized servers.

Not invincible. But definitely not "less secure."

Myth #3: "WebRTC doesn't work behind firewalls"

What people think: Corporate firewalls block WebRTC. It fails in restrictive networks.

Reality: WebRTC was designed specifically to work through firewalls.

How it actually works:

STUN servers: Help discover your public IP and port. Gets through most NATs.

TURN servers: Relay traffic when direct connection impossible. Always works as fallback.

ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment): Tries multiple connection methods. Uses whatever works.

The truth about "doesn't work":

What actually happens: Direct peer-to-peer might fail. Then it falls back to relay.

You still connect. Just through a server instead of directly.

Worst case: Connection quality similar to Zoom. Not worse.

Best case: Direct connection, better than traditional platforms.

Where it actually struggles:

Extremely restrictive networks: Military, some government, ultra-paranoid corporate. These block EVERYTHING.

But they also block Zoom, Skype, everything else. That's not a WebRTC problem.

Symmetric NATs: Some router configurations are tricky. But TURN servers solve this.

Mobile carrier restrictions: Some carriers block peer-to-peer. Annoying but solvable.

Real success rate: 85-95% direct connections. Remaining 5-15% work through relay.

That's pretty damn good.

Myth #4: "You need to be a networking expert to use WebRTC"

What people think: WebRTC is complicated. Only senior developers can implement it. Requires deep networking knowledge.

Reality: Basic WebRTC is surprisingly simple. Advanced stuff? Yeah, that's hard.

How easy it actually is:

Using a library (Simple-Peer):

const peer = new SimplePeer({ initiator: true });
peer.on('signal', data => {
  // Send this to other peer
});
peer.on('data', data => {
  console.log('Received:', data);
});

That's it. Three lines. You're doing peer-to-peer communication.

Using a service (Daily, Twilio):

Even easier. They handle the complexity. You just use their API.

What IS complicated:

Production-ready implementation: Error handling, reconnection logic, mobile optimization. That's work.

Scaling to thousands: Need SFU (Selective Forwarding Unit) architecture. Advanced.

Perfect firewall traversal: Configuring TURN servers optimally. Tricky.

But basic stuff? Easier than most web APIs.

The learning curve:

Day 1: "WTF is a signaling server?"

Day 3: "Oh, it just exchanges connection info. That's it?"

Week 1: Basic video chat working.

Month 1: Pretty decent implementation.

Year 1: Actually understanding what you're doing.

Not that bad. Especially compared to, say, learning Kubernetes.

Myth #5: "WebRTC is free (as in no cost)"

What people think: Open source = free = no costs.

Reality: WebRTC code is free. Running it at scale? That costs money.

What's actually free:

The technology itself: Open source. No licensing fees. Use it however you want.

STUN servers: Google offers free ones. Yahoo too. Others available.

Development: No SDK costs. No per-user fees. No runtime charges.

What costs money:

TURN servers: Relay servers when direct connection fails. Bandwidth isn't free.

At scale: 5-15% of connections need relay. For 10,000 users, that's 500-1,500 relayed connections eating bandwidth.

Signaling infrastructure: WebSocket servers for coordinating connections. Cheap but not free.

Your development time: Building it takes time. Time is money.

Cost comparison:

Twilio (managed WebRTC):

• $0.0015 per participant minute
• 1,000 hours usage = $90

Self-hosted WebRTC:

• TURN server: $50/month
• Signaling server: $20/month
• Developer time: Depends

Break-even point: Around 3,000-5,000 hours monthly usage.

Below that? Managed is cheaper (your time has value).

Above that? Self-hosted wins.

The "free" myth explained:

Unlike Zoom: No per-user licensing. No subscription.

Unlike cloud storage: No per-GB fees. No transfer charges.

Compared to alternatives: WebRTC is cheaper. Often dramatically cheaper.

But "free"? Only if your time is worthless and you have no users.

Bonus Myth: "WebRTC is dying / being replaced"

What people think: WebRTC is old. Something better exists or is coming.

Reality: WebRTC is more popular than ever. And still evolving.

The numbers:

Billions of monthly users: Every Discord call. Every WhatsApp web call. Every Google Meet. Tons of others.

Growing adoption: More apps adding WebRTC, not fewer.

Active development: New features still being added. Codecs improving. Performance enhancing.

What about "replacements"?

WebTransport: Complement to WebRTC, not replacement. Different use cases.

QUIC: Transport protocol WebRTC can use. Enhancement, not replacement.

5G: Makes WebRTC work better. Not a replacement.

Nothing on the horizon replaces WebRTC. It's the standard. For good reason.

Why these myths persist

WebRTC is invisible: Most users don't know they're using it. Makes it seem niche.

Early adoption was rough: First implementations were buggy. Reputation stuck.

Sounds complicated: The name "Web Real-Time Communication" sounds technical. Scares people off.

Marketing advantage: Zoom, Twilio, others benefit from WebRTC seeming harder than it is. Justifies their fees.

Security theater: "Peer-to-peer is scary" plays on fears. Even when unfounded.

The actual truth about WebRTC

What it is: Mature, proven, widely-used technology for real-time communication.

What it's good for: Video, voice, data transfer, live streaming, gaming, IoT. Lots of things.

Security: Strong encryption, end-to-end by default. Generally more secure than alternatives.

Difficulty: Basic usage is easy. Production-ready is moderate. Advanced scaling is hard.

Cost: Technology is free. Running it has costs. Often cheaper than alternatives at scale.

Future: Not going anywhere. Still evolving. More adoption coming, not less.

The bottom line

Most myths about WebRTC come from:

• Early rough implementations (long since improved)
• Marketing by competing services
• Genuine confusion about how it works
• Security concerns that don't understand the tech

Reality: WebRTC is battle-tested, widely adopted, continuously improving technology that powers much of the real-time internet.

It's not perfect. Nothing is. But it's definitely not what the myths claim.

Next time someone tells you WebRTC is insecure, or doesn't work through firewalls, or is dying... you'll know better.

---

See WebRTC in action: Try NotesQR for peer-to-peer file transfers.

Questions? Connect on LinkedIn or X.com.