Niranjan, I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps I should have given a little more background in the story. I think if you read the earlier story, which is more background, then it'd be easier to understand. The use case is for rural coverage so that you install fewer base stations (BTS). If today a handful BTSs are required for a small village, then with LMLC, one BTS can take care of the coverage in that village. The signal can travel longer/wider. It's less attractive to OEMs because they sell fewer BTS, which are expensive and for 5G can cost upwards of Rs25L/BTS. Operators are sitting on the fence because they don't see a neat business model in the countryside.
On how regulators decide: This is a very complex and technical issue. Let me try to simplify. The standards body is 3GPP where there is a technical group which discusses all technologies and decides on what needs to be included in every generation or G of telecom. This body is dominated by OEMs. And by extension commercial interests. Whatever standards are approved, they get picked up for product development by the OEMs. No poor country has any representation in that and only what is presented in those meetings get picked up for discussion - you see the vicious cycle. India has been ragged there. There's no Indian OEM of any stature to back the Indian tech. In contrast, China and Korea have advanced much further from 4G. In 5G, these Asian countries have several high quality patents and Huawei and Samsung are very powerful in 3GPP. India neither has great R&D, nor any OEM.