Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same as the US surely? There's huge swathes of the US which has very limited cell coverage. Looking at a map, the majority of OR/ID/MT/ND/SD doesn't have cell coverage, not even 2G. Apparently more than 83% of the US population lives in urban environments, compared to 73% in Russia. In fact, it's more than the UK too (80%).
To some extent, definitely. But America has always had the "open road" attitude. I think it's a lot more likely for a family to take a road trip to the Grand Canyon one summer, across several of those states, than for a Russian family to take a road trip to... hell, I can't find a city in the middle of Siberia on Google Maps, but you get the idea.
Anyway, it's a moot point. Rural areas are cheap to cover. Stick a macrocell up, microwave some backhaul in from another tower (until you hit the nearest fibre line) and jobs done. Cities are much much more expensive - costs more to put the masts up, need many many more masts and complex frequency allocations, buildings blocking the line of sight, etc. I'm sure that rural capex/opex is a very small percentage of Verizon/AT&Ts budget compared to all the thousands of new 4G sites they're putting up in urban areas.