Without any LTE products in the market, not to mention pricing information, my guess is that for operators who say they have plans for LTE has to do more with claiming the rights to spectrum than actual plan.

CDMA2000 operators are stuck since their upgrade path ends there with EvDox1, and from there they have to pick either LTE or WiMAX. WCDMA operators have a longer lifetime so they can wait.

I wonder what country the folks who wrote the Storm worm are from?
What was it at its peak 7% of all PCs with malware?
Now how much bandwidth do you need to take down big US bank websites (all of them at the same time)?

Also, be careful about jumping to conclusions about Sprint.  Sprint runs a major US cellular service using CDMA 2000 technology.  They also own some currently idle spectrum at 2.5 GHz which they have effectively ceded to Craig McCaw (founder of Clearwire) who is setting the strategy for the Sprint/Clearwire venture.  Craig McCaw is a sharp guy and will likely make something of this spectrum using pre-WiMAX (today) and WiMAX longer term, however, his focus is on broadband Internet access.  It's not clear there will be a competitive mobile voice telephony service here.  It is clear that Craig McCaw is in control now, not Sprint.

Meanwhile, there are four national 3G cellular networks in the US.  AT&T;and T-Mobile USA both use GSM/3GSM with plans to move to LTE.  Verizon and Sprint both use CDMA 2000 (plus Sprint owns the Nextel iDEN network).  Verizon has already announced they will move to LTE (not to CDMA 2000's successor UMB which appears to be dead in the water).  In fact, CDMA 2000 operators in Australia, China, Japan and Korea have announced plans to move to HSPA or LTE.  Sprint has not said what they will do to migrate their cellular network beyond CDMA 2000 EVDO Rev A.  If they do go to WiMAX instead of LTE, they will be the only CDMA 2000 operator to do so.

But more importantly, there wasn't really any other path of upgrade from 2G. Perhaps an incremental 2.5G (EDGE) upgrade, but otherwise, the nature evolution is 3G.

3G to "4G" however now opens up two possible path - LTE and M.WIMAX. Sprint/Clearwire has taken on the latter but no operator has sign up for LTE (since it is not ready yet).

So I would not be too quick to jump into conclusion that LTE will win. No doubt the operators would have more confident in GSMA standards. But if Sprint/Clearwire experiment is successful, it would be very hard to say how the market will go.

We've already seen an equally big transition when the GSM community moved from the TDMA modulation used by original GSM to the CDMA modulation used in WCDMA.  That change was as sweeping as the change from WCDMA (used by 3GSM) to OFDMA (used by LTE).  The transition to WCDMA took years longer than expected.  (In 1997 I heard people claiming 3G would be deployed by 2000.) And while this was happening, the IS-95 people were already using CDMA modulation and moving to CDMA 2000 (1xRTT, EV-DO, etc.) with data rates, at every stage, consistently ahead of 3GSM's WCDMA, HSDPA and HSPA. 

Yet GSM/3GSM won.

I don't doubt LTE will be late.  But GSM/3GSM/LTE will be dominant.

Moving from 3.5G to LTE is a big change; moving from WCDMA/CDMA2000 to OFDMA. Moving to pure IP is another big since most 3G network are still on R4/R5 and pure IP post-R6 networks are rare (not much vendor anyone at economical price point). This means a huge capital expenses, overhauling almost every part of the network, from the ASN to the core.

Therefore, it is very likely LTE will take a path of 2G to 3G ... going to take a extremely long period of time before any telco will jump into it. It is inside that limbo that M.WIMAX may have a chance...And if it is not successful by then, then M.WIMAX has no chance.

I have in local CVS a version which resolves quite a number of issues for all platforms and makes it easier to use and test and debug etc, but it is far from ready for the general public. I hope to have some spare time though soon so that I can work on it and get it out of the door as it will make life for people easier. Unfortunately time is the problem there. In life that is the most essential missing piece: time. I have set a deadline for the Internetdagarna to release a new edition finally though, but I am not sure I can make it. Somebody can provide you with a Mac OS X binary if you need it, though I don't have a mac, thus I can't.

> While I use a home router that supports IPv6 to some
> extent (Apple Airport Extreme),

There was a short consideration of getting at least heartbeat support into AEBS, but it needs a config file, which thus means that they GUI tool needs to be updated, and that is problematic.

> I have not heard when or if my ISP (Comcast) will be offering native
> IPv6 service to its customers.

From what I know is that Comcast has upgraded/plans for upgrading their management network, that is their first priority. Additionally they are working hard in the IETF and doing all kinds of proposals for getting IPv6 to the end-user. This will take a few years though. One good thing is that DOCSIS 3.0 does support IPv6, thus that helps a lot, but doesn't resolve all problems for a large deployment like they have. Alain Durand is the person to talk to if you want a status update on that, he gives presentations on the subject regularly.

> You turn it on and you get either nothing (have to install new
> hardware/software)

Teredo resolves that gap on Windows.

> or worse than nothing (delays, packet loss, fascinating routing, etc).

The only delay I know of is caused by DNS borkedness as mentioned above in another comment. As for packetloss, not on the networks that I work with, same for scenic routing; these last two factors really depend on the fact if your provider (just like IPv4) actually cares about the connection they are providing to you or not.

Marshal’s research results are derived from a web-based survey hosted on the Marshal website during June and July 2008.

They got a representative sample on their own web site?

http://risnaini.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/youtube-fitna-cisco-regex-filter-nbar/

[and no, I am not going into the ethics debate part of this here, that's as dead a horse as you can get]

Your information is correct, Richard. Thursday, yes. *AFTER* the action started in South Ossetia by the Georgian president Saakashvili by flattening ossetian city Chinvalli with missils. CNN and other sites remained silent when that happend.  Georgian info agency says it were ossetian hackers, not russian ones, who hacked the website. That happened BEFORE Russia joined the conflict. When Russia took Ossetia side, more and more sites were DOS-attacked, both pro-ossetia-and-russian and pro-georgian. The latter suffered more, of course.

As for other questions in your post: I wouldn't speculate… My opinion is that there are no good and bad guys in this conflict: Ossetian bandits disrupted georgian villages, georgians retaliated and so on. It does not matter who started, it only matters who continues.

More: they are both Caucasians, very hot folks. It will be VERY difficult to reconcile these people.

Slightly more likely is the internet as we know it will have evolved into something different, or something else will completely replace it, not even yet developed or thought of, before this happens…