Blair Levin is one of telecommunications policy’s most respected elder statesmen. He served as chief of staff to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Reed Hundt, executive director of the National Broadband Plan, and played a key role for the Barak Obama transition team. His insightful commentary on tech issues, offered from his current perches at the Brookings Institution and New Street Research, is followed closely by power players both in Washington and on Wall Street.

So when Levin reportedly wrote this week that outgoing FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel had “the least consequential term as Chair in modern FCC history,” many took notice. (Hat tip Ted Hearn at Policyband). His critique was harsh but fair: Rosenworcel expended significant political capital on controversial progressive initiatives at the fringe of the agency’s authority while neglecting many bread-and-butter issues at the core of the FCC’s mission. It’s a cautionary tale for incoming Chairman Brendan Carr, who will face temptations from the right similar to those that distracted Rosenworcel from the left.

In many ways, Rosenworcel’s tenure was a microcosm of the Biden administration as a whole: a voter mandate for a moderate return to normalcy was repurposed to further a progressive agenda. This was not entirely her fault: from the outset, Rosenworcel was hamstrung by the White House’s decision to nominate progressive champion Gigi Sohn as the agency’s fifth commissioner. Sohn is a whip-smart, experienced telecom advocate and although we disagree about most policy issues, I supported her candidacy. But her activism proved divisive, and early in the process, it was clear that she lacked the votes for confirmation. The two-year battle before Sohn was withdrawn was partly a proxy fight over a progressive vision for telecom policy, which denied Rosenworcel a Democratic majority for much of her tenure.

But once the seat was filled, Rosenworcel quickly used that majority to push a progressive agenda. Here Levin’s critique is spot-on. Rosenworcel focused the FCC’s limited capital on two controversial proceedings, the Title II reclassification order and the digital discrimination rules. Both orders pushed the outer boundary of agency authority, on 3-2 party line votes, and were designed to score political victories for the far left rather than to remedy existing consumer harms. As Levin notes, those political victories are likely to be ephemeral: with the repeal of the Chevron doctrine, neither order is likely to withstand judicial review. The fight over these orders left the FCC without the political capital to win more important congressional battles over the Affordable Connectivity Program and (embarrassingly) the renewal of its own spectrum auction authority. Meanwhile, the FCC neglected pressing issues within its purview, such as universal service contribution reform.

Compare this legacy with that of her predecessor, Chairman Ajit Pai, whose leadership was one of the bright spots of the first Trump administration. While Pai’s FCC also fought in the Title II war, much of his legacy stems from focusing on the basic blocking and tackling of everyday regulation. Pai’s self-proclaimed top priority was narrowing the rural digital divide, which he addressed by completing the Connect America Fund rollout and launching the $20 billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The agency also sought to expand wireless communication with experimental spectrum sharing models and by pushing interagency stakeholders to repurpose underused federal spectrum. And it enacted several long-overdue process reform initiatives, including enhanced transparency efforts and establishing an Office of Economics and Analytics to improve the agency’s analytical capabilities.

One lesson for incoming Chairman Carr is to resist the temptation to lead the FCC as a happy warrior in America’s broader culture wars. Historically, Carr has used his position as an FCC commissioner to spotlight communications-related grievances in Trump-world, such as allegations of bias against Big Tech companies and legacy media. But it would be a mistake to become the Rosenworcel of the right, for example by pursuing a rulemaking to limit the scope of Section 230 protections for interactive computer services. The repeal of Chevron makes it harder for agencies to reinterpret statutory language to achieve broad political or social change. This was intentional, as these politically volatile questions are better addressed by Congress than agencies. Similarly, as my AEI colleague Clay Calvert explained, an FCC proceeding to punish broadcasters for their editorial decisions is likely to crash against the rocks of the First Amendment, costing the agency significant political capital for no lasting purpose.

Instead, Carr should focus on important issues core to the FCC’s basic operations. This must include restoration of the agency’s spectrum auction authority. With the Wi-Fi 7 and 5G rollout occurring, and potential 6G innovations just around the corner, the FCC’s lost auction authority threatens its ability to keep America competitive in the global wireless communication marketplace. This core telecommunications issue is a fight worth expending precious agency political capital.

Learn more: Breaking Down a Big Week in the Net Neutrality Case | TikTok’s No Good, Very Bad Day in Court | Broadband Providers Should Not Be Liable for User Copyright Infringement | Telegram CEO Arrest and Brazil’s X Ban Raise Free Speech and Privacy Concerns