Los Angeles Times

[Commentary] Some bills that ordinarily might generate some controversy fly through the Legislature with nary a vote against them. Consider AB 2365 by Assembly Speaker Emeritus John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles).

Introduced in February, it has encountered almost no opposition. The bill seeks to provide some new legal protection for consumers who offer online opinions or comments. It would make it illegal for retailers to require customers to agree not to complain publicly, such as in online reviews, about their purchases.

If merchants think that our 1st Amendment free speech rights need to be curtailed, they should say so upfront and in plain language. Such legalese often is found in small type in pop-up windows that prompt online buyers to agree to the terms before completing a purchase. Merchants, before threatening to or taking legal action, would have to prove that a customer knowingly and voluntarily agreed to not post negative comments.

Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox and private equity giant Apollo Global Management are in preliminary talks to create a global television production house that would manage big hits like "American Idol" and "Deal or No Deal."

The deal would combine Fox's Shine Group as well as the Apollo-controlled Endemol and Core Media Group. The joint venture would be one of the largest reality TV producers in the world, controlling franchises like "Master Chef," "The Biggest Loser" and "Big Brother."

Joining forces would buttress both companies during a period of intense consolidation in the production industry, particularly among firms that specialize in unscripted shows. A number of deals were announced among broadcasters seeking to expand content and increase audience share.

"This gives them access to newer programming ideas and exposes them to the possibility of other concepts," said veteran media analyst Hal Vogel, "and may save them some money too."

Internet providers have sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency not to reclassify broadband as a utility, following reports that Chairman Tom Wheeler had revised his proposal for net neutrality.

The letter maintains that although reclassifying broadband as a utility would give the FCC more regulatory power over Internet providers, it would also stifle innovation and lead to less money invested into broadband networks, ultimately hurting consumers' Internet experience.

A total of 28 Internet providers from across the US backed the letter, dated May 13, with signatures from their chief executives. Among the companies were AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon. "Such an action would greatly distort the future development of, and investment in, tomorrow’s broadband networks and services," the companies said.

The Internet providers said they want to work toward rules that would secure an open Internet but that reclassification is not the way.

[Commentary] Fans of network neutrality -- the idea that Internet service providers shouldn't be able to block, slow, or favor some content providers over others -- should show Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler a little love.

Obviously, that's not because Chairman Wheeler's open Internet proposal, scheduled for presentation to his fellow Federal Communications Commission members, upholds the net neutrality principle. It doesn't; by condoning "paid prioritization," through which some content providers can pay to get better access to users than others, it does immense violence to the principle.

No, Chairman Wheeler deserves some love because his ham-handed way of putting out his plan has placed what might otherwise be an obscure proposal followed mainly by techies on a much bigger burner. Chairman Wheeler has responded to the public uproar generated by his plan to back off it, a wee bit. It's still bad for the Internet.

The upcoming vote wouldn't implement Chairman Wheeler's proposal, but open it up for public comment. But it would be a major step in the wrong direction.

There is no question that allowing such arrangements would be a major retreat for the FCC. The agency would be placed in the position of ruling on commercial deals that already had been put in place, and trying to unwind those it didn't like, based on very murky standards. This would be like trying to dismantle a skyscraper after it's been built.

The number of commercials in the typical hour of television has grown steadily during the last five years, according to a new study from the ratings measurement firm Nielsen.

The rise in commercials can be attributed to two factors: Broadcast and cable networks are allotting more time for commercials, and advertisers are increasingly using shorter spots to hawk their products.

In 2009, the broadcast networks averaged 13 minutes and 25 seconds of commercial time per hour. In 2013, that figure grew to 14 minutes and 15 seconds. The growth has been even more significant on cable television. In 2009, cable networks averaged 14 minutes and 27 seconds per hour. In 2013, the average was 15 minutes and 38 seconds. At the same time, the number of 30-second commercials has declined while 15-second spots have increased. Not only is more time being devoted to ads, but more spots are being jammed into commercial breaks.

When Paramount Pictures and Regency Enterprises were finishing up "Noah," they looked to an unusual market to release the $130-million biblical epic: China. But "Noah" and his ark won't be landing in China any time soon.

The country's cinematic censors have refused to give the Russell Crowe movie one of the nation's limited non-Chinese release slots, two people with knowledge of the studio's efforts to bring the movie to the mainland said.

"Noah," which was released domestically March 28, has grossed $99 million in the US and an additional $233 million so far overseas. China probably would have been another key to the film's global popularity. Aside from religious sensitivity, another person with knowledge of China's censorship system said "Noah" may have been shunned partially out of commercial concerns as well.

Less than a day after news broke that Apple was in talks to acquire Beats Electronics for $3.2 billion, many observers were still scratching their heads.

Yes, Beats makes some popular headphones. Yes, it's launched a streaming music service, though one that appears to be off to a slow start. And yes, Beats has some serious brand buzz thanks to co-founder Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre.

That said, it was hard to find someone who thought the deal for Apple, at that price, made much sense. In a note to clients, Gene Munster, a Piper Jaffray analysts who is generally bullish on Apple, said the company would be better off spending its considerable war chest on something else.

"We are struggling to see the rationale behind this move," Munster wrote. "Beats would of course bring a world class brand in music to Apple, but Apple already has a world class brand and has never acquired a brand for a brand's sake." Given Apple's challenges in areas like Web services, Munster said he'd rather see that kind of money put toward buying a stronger Internet service.

[Commentary] Your personal information is yours. Yet that simple idea, which should serve as the basis of all privacy-related laws and regulations in the United States, seems to have eluded those who profess to be the guardians of consumer data.

The White House reiterated its call for greater protection of people's personal info -- two years after proposing a "privacy bill of rights" that went nowhere in Congress.

A new report, written by a group led by White House counselor John Podesta, says that "big data" -- the various entities that benefit from knowing all there is to know about you -- is growing out of control. We're talking about sensors in our homes, cities, wearable devices, that collect and share information about our surroundings, our behavior, our health and our whereabouts.

His report suggests some modest legislative changes, along with "voluntary, enforceable codes of conduct" for businesses and government agencies to keep consumer data from being abused or getting into the wrong hands. I don't know. Seems to me that if sensors everywhere is the problem, voluntary codes of conduct aren't the solution.

Moreover, while the report addresses the ease with which people's information can be collected, crunched and put to use, it fails to adequately convey the sense of violation that comes with businesses and government officials knowing your habits, behavior and activities.

The report says that "we must ensure that effective consumer privacy protections are in place to protect individuals." But it stops short of doing anything about it, such as requiring that private companies disclose to consumers what they know about them. The report also recommends that US privacy safeguards be extended to non-US citizens "because privacy is a worldwide value." This is apparently a bone being thrown to European businesses and governments.

Europeans enjoy far more robust privacy protections than Americans and have long complained that their data are unfairly exploited by US companies. The White House wants Europeans to know that we feel their pain. But that's not good enough. The Europeans have it right: They begin any discussion of data use with an acknowledgment that all people have a right to privacy -- a right that's only implied, not spelled out, in US law.

When it comes to tablets, Apple remains the dominant leader, but rival Samsung is catching up. Apple iPad sales fell from 19.5 million during the first quarter of 2013 to 16.4 million during that period in 2014. At the same, Samsung grew its tablet sales from 8.5 million to 11.2 million during the first quarter of 2014, according to figures released by IDC, an analysis firm.

Those sales caused Apple's share of the tablet market to fall from 40.2% in 2013 to 32.5% in the first quarter while Samsung grew its share of the market from 17.5% to 22.3%.

During the period, Samsung released a handful of new tablets, including the Galaxy NotePro and Galaxy TabPro, with numerous productivity features that were aimed toward professionals. The company also packaged its tablets with other devices and products in numerous carrier promotions. The tactics seem to be paying off.

"Samsung continues to work aggressively with carriers to drive tablet shipments through attractively priced smartphone bundles," IDC said in a statement.

The whole market struggled with sales during the first quarter of 2014. According to IDC, tablet sales grew only 3.9% from 2013. Along with Apple, Asus and Amazon also saw their tablet sales decrease compared with 2013.

"The rise of large-screen phones and consumers who are holding on to their existing tablets for ever longer periods of time were both contributing factors to a weaker-than-anticipated quarter for tablets and 2-in-1s," Tom Mainelli, IDC program vice president of devices and displays, said.

Venture capital rising to levels not seen since 2001. Companies with no profits going public. Billions of dollars being paid for start-ups.

These and other signs that the tech boom may be taking an irrational turn are leading some notable investors to utter the dreaded word "bubble," waking up the ghosts of an era many in Silicon Valley would prefer to keep buried.