Etisalat is turning 50, and it appears to be marking the occasion by reaching for its old name. In a short message posted to X on October 5, the UAE telecom operator said it is beginning its next half-century under the name it started with, closing with a pointed declaration that it is, always was and always will be Etisalat. Notably absent from the post was any mention of e&, the group identity the company has carried since 2022.
That omission is what has everyone reading between the lines. No formal rebrand has been announced, and the company has not publicly clarified whether e& is being retired, scaled back or simply kept out of an anniversary message. Until it does, this remains a strong signal rather than a confirmed decision.
For 50 years, etisalat has grown alongside the UAE. As we begin our next 50, we do it under the name where it all started. We are etisalat. We always have been. We always will be. #50Yearsetisalat https://t.co/BBwhIWLRsK
— etisalat (@etisalat) October 5, 2026
Some context helps explain why the move would make sense. When Etisalat Group became e& in 2022, the change was about repositioning the business as something larger than a phone and internet provider, with separate arms covering consumer services, enterprise technology, digital finance and international investments. The UAE consumer telecom business, however, never fully let go of its roots, operating as “etisalat by e&” in a compromise that kept the familiar name visible to customers while the parent pushed its new identity.
That arrangement always felt slightly awkward. Corporate rebrands built around abbreviations and symbols tend to resonate with investors and analysts far more than with the people paying monthly bills, and in the UAE, Etisalat is not just a company name but a piece of the country’s modern history. Founded in 1976, it has grown alongside the federation itself, from landlines to fibre and 5G, and for many residents the word is shorthand for telecoms in general.
A full return would mirror a pattern seen elsewhere, where companies that chased sleek, futuristic identities later rediscovered the commercial value of heritage. It would also raise practical questions about how the group’s non-telecom businesses, many of which were built and marketed under the e& umbrella, would be presented. Renaming a holding company is one thing; untangling a brand architecture spread across multiple countries and services is considerably harder.
For customers, the immediate impact is likely to be cosmetic, with the same network, plans and apps sitting behind whichever logo wins out. The more interesting question is strategic. If the operator does step back from e&, it would be a quiet admission that four years of building a new identity never quite displaced 46 years of the old one.
