Specifically, users of the company’s recently released Thunderbolt 4G device seemed to have the most issues. Data connectivity wasn’t completely out: instead the phones were connecting at slower 3G speeds, and voice calls were not affected. The issues mark the first time there has been any serious disruptions with Verizon Wireless’ high-speed network.

The issue appears pretty widespread, and there are a significant amount of tweets complaining about issues, as well as posts from customers nationwide to Verizon’s support forums.

Ina Fried over at All Things Digital mentions the ironic timing of the outage: it came just two days after Verizon vice president Nicola Palmer boasted how smoothly the rollout has gone so far. Oops.

There’s been a variety of different reasons mentioned as to why Apple is deciding to “delay” the launch of the iPhone 5: whether it be to line up with the holiday shopping season, the (late) launch of the Verizon model, or as DigiTimes claims component shortages and continued high sales of the iPhone 4.

Component suppliers would typically see some type of plan as to when to ramp down manufacturing from Apple itself, the paper’s sources said. Orders for parts for the current model have not yet decreased as is normally seen towards the end of a product’s life however, meaning the iPhone 4 still is selling well –I’d venture to guess due especially  to the Verizon model.

While DigiTimes’ record for accuracy is far from spotless, its reporting does bring up some interesting points. The iPhone 4 could still get a minor refresh during the typical June-July timeframe, it says. But Apple could also just choose to wait altogether and go for the apparent big splash with the iPhone 5.

If the company decides to wait with the fifth generation device, it would almost be foolish for it not to support LTE. Perhaps this is why Apple is waiting — LTE networks are nowhere near mature, as Apple has said, and are perhaps a year away (or even more) from being so.

The original iPhone was “crippled” (if you want to say that) with EDGE due to the same problem. By waiting a little bit Apple could get ahead of the curve. While this is a pain to people like me — who have an iPhone 3GS and were looking forward to finally upgrading — as long as this is the reason I’m perfectly fine with it.

Up to five devices can share a connection using the MiFi-like device, and it supports 802.11b,g, and n. It’s also VPN capable.

The unit is not the first to allow the sharing of Verizon LTE data connections via Wi-Fi–that honor goes to the HTC Thunderbolt. However, in order to use the data feature you’re going to need to have a plan that supports it, increasing the monthly cost of ownership.

Of course, the price of admission onto Verizon’s LTE towers isn’t cheap. The Samsung hotspot requires a data plan at $50/mo, which gives you 5GB of bandwidth each month. But if you’re truly using this as a hotspot, that cost spread out over several devices sounds more reasonable.

No question, 4G is the next mobile battleground for what shapes up to be a smaller field of national carriers. But at a day of sessions on the subject (sponsored by Fierce Wireless, which among other things publishes a first-rate daily newsletter on the wireless industry), the dominant theme seemed to be that the carriers may not be ready to deal with the enormous bandwidth demands their fast devices and networks will inevitably produce.

AT&T said as much in its press release about its decision to acquire T-Mobile. The company basically said it needed T-Mobile’s spectrum to cope with ongoing increases in mobile data use, which increased 8000 percent between 2007 and 2010, and which it expects to be 8 to 10 times as great in 2015 as it was in 2010. “In the long term, the entire industry will need additional spectrum to address the explosive growth in demand for mobile broadband,” the company warned in its news release.

At the Fierce Wireless sessions, AT&T Senior Vice President Kris Rinne said even the faster and more efficient LTE technology would not be enough to address the coming onslaught of bandwidth demand. The company is exploring various so-called small-cell technologies which can make a network more flexible in meeting demand as it occurs.

She mentioned as one example the AT&T Microcell, which essentially functions as a cell site that hands off traffic to the customer’s wired broadband network, thereby reducing demand on AT&T’s own cell sites. What she didn’t mention was that it cost me $150 to buy a Microcell and help AT&T with its bandwidth and reception problems.

But that brings me to the other issue (besides looming network capacity problems) that the carriers haven’t fully explained as they promote their 4G networks and devices: What is 4G going to cost me? Or, from the carrier perspective, how are they going to finance the huge costs of these new, fast networks?

No carrier has explicitly outlined all its plans to make money from 4G, and a Fierce Wireless panel on the subject was populated by consultants and third-party service providers (no major carrier would participate). They suggested several pricing scenarios, including targeted marketing opportunities.

Grant Lenahan of Telcordia, which provides software to address carrier and business communications problems, explained that the on-demand nature of mobile video has the potential to tell marketers a lot about your personal tastes that they might not be able to learn based solely on impersonal demographic information. This information could be used to deliver some unexpectedly personalized ads.

Randy Fuller of Tekelec, another provider of services to operators, said carriers might end up charging content providers for transit costs to mobile devices. In other words, Netflix might have to pay the carriers for the bandwidth involved in streaming movies to smartphones—a cost it would almost surely pass on in higher fees to consumers.

Panelists noted that video is the chief consumer of mobile bandwidth, accounting by some estimates for 50 percent now and expected to comprise 60 or 70 percent going forward. But if consumers were forced to pay more to stream video, many might prefer to reduce video consumption. Fuller cited a Tekelec study (performed in Europe, but still…) that found consumers ranked video 4th on the list of important mobile data services, behind web browsing, e-mail and navigation.

The study found that many people would pay a higher base cost for a plan that would allow unlimited use of non-video services (as opposed to one that would cap bandwidth usage for all services).

Right now, however, carriers are caught between a rock and a hard place: Do they want to charge more for 4G services in order to realize a good return on their investment, or are they willing to charge less in order to lure more subscribers? Dan Hesse and Sprint appear to be going down the latter route–it remains to be seen whether Verizon and AT&T will respond.

But in the long run, network capacity looms as the bigger problem. Regardless of pricing, consumption is only going to increase–and the wireless spectrum can only support so much traffic. As they trot out shiny new high-speed smartphones and tablets, the carriers have to be wondering: What if we all actually buy and use them?

But let’s step back a minute from the insta-reactions of most of the tech world and look at the bottom line: merger or not, T-Mobile’s customers stand to benefit the most by far. The deal is written in such a way that even if regulators scoff at it, T-Mobile will exit in a much stronger position than it is currently in.

I do realize that hyper-consolidation in any industry is never good. The SprinT-Mobile merger that looked like a possibility a few weeks ago would have been the merger from hell, though. Yes, it would have likely won easy approval because the combined company would still have less customers than its two larger competitors. But merging those two networks would have taken years.

When Cingular and AT&T Wireless merged in 2004, it took the two companies nearly two years to merge the GSM and TDMA networks together (the old AT&T Wireless had already begun the process, however). The two technologies were fairly similar: an upgrade path was available from TDMA to GSM.

With CDMA, Sprint’s wireless technology, there is not. It would require a massive and costly transition that would likely take much longer.

T-Mobile did not have that kind of time. It could be argued the company was following a similar path to Sprint previous to the Nextel merger, where the company was drifting, listless, and beginning to hemorrhage customers. T-Mobile needed to figure out its future. AT&T was it.

While AT&T talked up the benefits to its own subscribers in the merger announcement, the real winners are the T-Mobile customers. With identical technologies (save for their 3G frequencies), almost immediately after the merger is approved those subscriber’s coverage area will increase several times over. (For T-Mobile subscribers, the biggest gripe is always coverage.)

Secondly, T-Mobile customers will stand to benefit from gaining access to AT&T’s expansive non-Android line (iPhone/iPad, Windows Phone 7). I honestly do not believe that AT&T would not beef its Android lineup as a result of this marriage: remember, a Deutsche Telekom executive will now sit on the AT&T board.

Third, T-Mobile customers now have a clear path to LTE. The carrier has been pretty silent, talking up its HSPA+ network, but has so far not made a strong commitment to the 4G technology. Remember how far the carrier was behind on 3G — in this increasingly data intensive society, it can’t afford to continue to play catch up.

Fourth, and probably the most important, is what happens if the merger fails. T-Mobile would get $3 billion in cash from AT&T as a result, as well as unused AWS spectrum. Add to this the fact that AT&T is required to provide the carrier a roaming agreement “on terms favorable to T-Mobile,” and how could customers lose?

I think it’s foolish to believe that T-Mobile would be able to continue life as a budget-priced carrier while still attempting to compete on the stage with the big boys. It was simply not going to happen. The AT&T deal was the smartest move for the carrier, even if it seemed the least likely. We shouldn’t automatically assume the worst–if our antitrust regulators do their jobs, we won’t need to worry about the return of Ma Bell anytime soon.

The facts that caught my eye:

• Verizon is charging $50 a month for 5GB of data, and $80 for 10GB; as a current customer of its 3G data service, that strikes me as a decent deal, since I’m paying $60 for 5GB of pokier 3G service.
• Two USB modems will be available, for $99 each on contract after rebates; they’ll double as 3G modems when 4G service isn’t around.
• It sounds like 4G phones won’t show up until mid-2011 (there goes any last remaining possibility of a 4G Verizon iPhone in early 2011).

What I really want is a 4G MiFi mobile router that I can use with a laptop, an iPad, a smartphone, and any other Wi-Fi device; I assume that one is in the works. Hope that it arrives before too long–and that there’s a way for me to upgrade from my 3G MiFi without spending a fortune.