From the article: "In North America, while there are Internet exchanges, they are typically run by for-profit companies." ... "In North America the combination of relatively cheap transit, and relatively expensive exchanges lowers the value of joining an exchange. With less networks joining exchanges, there are fewer opportunities for networks to easily peer."
Let me get this straight: North America has several for-profit companies that operate continental-wide networks, because building them is cheap, but they peer with each other less often than in Europe. The situation isn't ideal, but it makes the internet "backbone" market competitive, so it works out.
Side note: the situation is very different when talking about last mile ISPs in North America.
I always find it interesting that the business network in the US is often ignored. It's quite stellar on a combination of quality and price. I think it's an inconvenient data point for people that only like to bash the US telecommunications situation.
People tend to complain about problems and ignore things that are fine.
While a desire to avoid pointing out any positive of a situation that drives them crazy frequently may be part of the reason it isn't mentioned I think it pales in comparison to just forgetting about whatever isn't a problem.
