I asked my mobile service provider when they might start supporting IPv6, and got the answer that they have enough IPv4 addresses, so no plans to implement IPv6. The mind boggles.
This is odd/amusing, because in US as far as I know there are no carriers doing IPv4 anymore - it's all IPv6 with 464xlat or equivalent translation proxies.
And these are companies with more IPv4 than your carrier most likely.
The sheer size of the US and thus the US market drives this in part.
Suppose you're a "big" ISP in Norway. Maybe you have almost half a million customers, and your corporate growth plan says you want a million customers by 2030.
Your engineers need a way to address all the backend infrastructure on your network. So, they give it all 10/8 addresses. No problem. "Do you need IPv6? Our customers are saying they want it?" "Not really, put it on the nice-to-have list and we'll get to it when we get to it".
In contrast your American equivalent has 20 million customers and hopes to expand to 40 million customers by 2030. Their engineers ran out of addresses in 10/8 for infrastructure years ago. So there are awful, miserable hacks they can do, but just go to IPv6 solves the problem. And hey, since your backend network is IPv6 anyway, you can just as well give it to your customers.
Once you bite the bullet, IPv6 first is actually cheaper. But most organisations aren't set up to think that way. The big changes resulting from the pandemic illustrate that. Can some (many? almost all?) of your office workers be more effective if they don't spend an hour every day commuting and then sit in a small cubicle most days of the week? The answer to that question didn't change from May 2019 to May 2020 but whether your employer knew the answer changed.
