There is a lot of reasons the industry is apathetic to ipv6. Probably the foremost is the RoI. General public doesn't know or care what IPv6 can do for them. Hence they won't be likely to pay more for it. If they won't pay, why do it?
Unfortunately the "all IPv4 address blocks will likely be exhausted within 1.5 years" doesn't hold much water either, considering that most cell phone providers these days do not give a public IP to their customers. This solution is most preferable to them, due to public apathy. Average Joe, Dick or Harry doesn't care much beyond being able to access Google on their mobile phone, check email, and maybe download few songs.
Private network IP also helps cover up any sort of security holes in their mobile devices (windows mobiles mostly) since if their device isn't publicly accessible from outside - the risk is lower that someone can hack into it. Natural barrier that is a NAT router also prevents the phones from becoming servers - something mobile networks do not want to see.
This is all in addition to the headaches of having to support of IPV6 in addition to IPV4. I might be wrong here - but I doubt a lot of phones on the market even support IPV6 stack. The ones running android probably do (given that ipv6 is part of linux kernel). But windows ones?
I am on Wind using Nexus one, and the IP my phone has is on a 10.*.*.* network with a gateway being the only one that has to have a public IP.
My guess is, unless there is a lot more content available only in IPV6, the public will have no reason to want it, and the providers have no reason to offer it. Lack of IPV4 addresses is solved in other, cheaper, more backward-compatible ways than tearing existing infrastructure out.