I agree except for the "cell towers covers more" statement. Cell tower coverage is actually greatest in areas like Iowa. Cell towers could in theory cover more people in a dense city, but you end up putting in more towers for both capacity and RF reasons.
- Channel capacity remains approximately the same per user, so in high density areas, you need more towers.
- RF signals are heavily reflected and/or shielded by the vast "concrete canyons" of a modern city, so more towers are needed to eliminate shadows.
Well, true. Cell tower coverage is actually very good in the kalahari desert. They build huge towers that cover cells way bigger than anything you'll find in any city. But those patch-cables they need from the tower to the backbone :). I think the OP meant something along the line "it's easier to supply a sufficiently dense network" since you probably need more antennas but in the end, it's easier to put up those antennas since you have a reliable cable connection close by.
- Channel capacity remains approximately the same per user, so in high density areas, you need more towers.
- RF signals are heavily reflected and/or shielded by the vast "concrete canyons" of a modern city, so more towers are needed to eliminate shadows.