Oops sorry. Was referring to the above about mobile operator politics, and lobbying power. Mobile operators like to think of themselves as the only ones owning and operating services on IMT spectrum.
The idea of being able to deliver a full mobile service to mobile phones is "sellable" - operators like to think of themselves as being the only ones able to provide the service people expect to a mobile handset. Then they can bundle handsets with service provision.
If you are interested in this topic, it's worth looking at the fraught relationship between mobile operators and WiFi. Operators historically rejected WiFi from handsets early on - WiFi was a rival to their high-price, high-margin mobile data services. Until perhaps the mid-3G days, when the idea of using WiFi for offload, due to the limited spectrum for mobile data started to become a tempting idea for operators.
Even that's controversial - the "enterprise" market around WiFi wasn't hugely keen on that either, since they felt the mobile operators were just trying to snap up and freeload on the license-exempt spectrum for extra capacity, and use up (finite) WiFi spectrum capacity while providing an operator-badged service.
In my view, Multefire hasn't taken off due to the general high complexity of the tech stack people would need to understand to use it (fine for me with a telecoms engineering background, less fine if you are from the pure IT world and just want something quick - it's a lot more effort and complexity than setting up a couple of WiFi APs), and the lack of pressure from mobile operators to support it. Handset support for features comes from operator demand/desire. Multefire isn't something handset makers will add, unless operators demand it. Absent that, it risks alienating or upsetting them, by opening up the handsets to competition, and since operators are the main route to market for your handsets, market dictates the rules...