Actually, Samsung did. Look here:
No sir, Samsung did not require cross-licensing.
That excerpt from the Commissioner's statement has to be read in context.
All that Samsung as a SEP holder is required to do, is offer a cash price that anyone can pay. Any other deal is gravy for both sides, and as the Commissioner pointed out, is perfectly legal.
Samsung made several offers to Apple, including the 2.4% cash price, AND another offer to lower rates through cross-licensing non-FRAND patents.
The Commissioner was not saying that Samsung was wrong to make such an offer. On the contrary, he said it was okay if consensual. The Commissioner was simply stating that he didn't think it should qualify to be listed as a FRAND offer with any other FRAND offers.
In other words, he was asking, if you ignore that particular offer, do the remaining offer(s) count as FRAND offer(s)?
Mueller's article made it sound like it was the only offer. It was not.