what's that tim brennan meant when they refer to the fcc as an execs free zone. if we're going to serve consumers we have to be careful -- weigh cost and benefits and that was the point of judge williams' lengthy dissent. >> barron, are you saying this should be debt with a rewriting of the telecom act. >> there is a spectrum of options where you could do a narrow deal that resolves the issue, takes other grants of power off the table -- section 706 has not been talked. -- that would alaw the fcc to regulate, google, facebook, et cetera could be regulated by the fcc, which essentially a branch check. so if i'm not the tech world i'm worried. the net neutrality may not hold up and i'm worried, and the other people like hal -- we don't agree on a lot of things but people see ways to sweeten the pie and do a deal. >> i just want to make this concrete. the compromise i have in mind would be to give the fcc the authority to do precisely what it wanted to do in the 2010 under but under a new supports. they tried under 706 and the courts said they cooperate. so if like

>> tim brennan was one of the chief economist. >> former fcc and a democrat. >> that the fcc ignored in rule making. we talked about analysis but i'm going to stick with economic analysis. with respect to economic there was really nothing done on this score. to an economist you have to demonstrate that not only does your policy generate benefits in excess of cost but rule out possibility that alternative like case-by-case treatment could generate even greater net benefits and there's a one-line dismissal despite economist are jumping up and down consider less restrictive, no analysis, just the word cumbersome, we think case by case would be too cumbersome. i want to pick up on one thing that baron said if that's okay on the major economic import or major economic ig nÍficance. he's quoting from a supreme court case king versus burwell and baron mentioned infrastructure and we talked about the tens of billions. ii want to tell you about what's happened since, now we have data coming through which to me is quite frightening. in 2015 where we had three quarters of the year, we had for t

the first tim the state department acknowledged there was link between a $400 million cash payment to iran and the release of four american but the administration denies it. margaret brennan, our state departmentorrespondent, is with us tonight. margaret. >> reporter: scott, well, the administration now admits that they held on to the cash until it w clear that the the prisoners h left iran. but u.s. officials still deny that this was ransom becse the money was owed to iran as pt of a failedsrm deal 35 years ago. what we know is that a plane loaded with swi franks and euros took off from a geneva airpor january 17 the sameti the planes crisscrossed in the sky. today, the administratio admitted to the lefng because they said they wanted maxum leverage fearing iran would renege. many republicans s thas early aansom payment to a state snsor of terrorism, and, scott, th acce president obama of lying when h insisted just a few weeks ago that the u.s.oesn'y ranso >> pelley: allthis was a side deal to thelear agreement as well. on this aircraft, he has known nothg put war. hasome the new face of syria's civil war, which has claimed the lives of re than 400,000 people,1,000 of th