In article <j5qg2m$57d$1@dont-email.me>, Cameo says...
>
> I thought AirTouch was the old name of Verizon and the brand ended in
> 2000, yet I noticed this news today:
>
> http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=8909
>
> Anyone knows more about it?
I think it's a different AirTouch. Originally, it looked like this:
Verizon = Bell Atlantic + GTE.
Verizon Wireless = Bell Atlantic Mobility Services + GTE Wireless +
Vodafone AirTouch + part of PrimeCo Cellular. (It wasn't just a name
change, it was a merger.)
As far as I know, AirTouch Cellular - which, at that point, was owned by
British telecomm giant Vodafone - ceased to exist. Vodafone is the
minority partner in VZW; they own 45%, Verizon owns 55%.
In article <MPG.28ea642f78383cef98983d@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol
says...
> As far as I know, AirTouch Cellular - which, at that point, was owned
by
> British telecomm giant Vodafone - ceased to exist. Vodafone is the
> minority partner in VZW; they own 45%, Verizon owns 55%.
LightSquared?, a wholesale carrier building a nationwide wireless
broadband network that will create consumer choice and drive industry
innovation, has signed a wholesale agreement with AirTouch®
Communications (OTCBB: ATCH), which develops telecommunications products
that can converge various services including voice, data, video and even
traditional landline.
Can just anybody pick up an old, no longer used brand name in the
same industry? If so, someone could start a new airline and call it
PanAm, no? I think such practices mislead the public.
In article <j5rde3$t6e$1@dont-email.me>, Cameo says...
>
> On 9/26/2011 11:35 AM, Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> > Ah. DEFINITELY a different AirTouch:
> >
> > http://www.lightsquared.com/press-ro.../lightsquared-
> > signs-multi-year-wholesale-agreement-with-airtouch-communications/
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://bit.ly/mPlfLk
>
> Can just anybody pick up an old, no longer used brand name in the
> same industry? If so, someone could start a new airline and call it
> PanAm, no? I think such practices mislead the public.
Not if the name is trademarked. If it isn't trademarked, it's fair game.
On 9/26/2011 9:53 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<j5rde3$t6e$1@dont-email.me>, Cameo says...
>>
>> On 9/26/2011 11:35 AM, Steve Sobol wrote:
>>
>>> Ah. DEFINITELY a different AirTouch:
>>>
>>> http://www.lightsquared.com/press-ro.../lightsquared-
>>> signs-multi-year-wholesale-agreement-with-airtouch-communications/
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://bit.ly/mPlfLk
>>
>> Can just anybody pick up an old, no longer used brand name in the
>> same industry? If so, someone could start a new airline and call it
>> PanAm, no? I think such practices mislead the public.
>
> Not if the name is trademarked. If it isn't trademarked, it's fair game.
>
As stated in their press release: "Upon learning that the AirTouch
trademark was available, management decided that this mark better
communicated its product and service message ..."
That answers that.
From my reading of some 8-K's and other filings through pinksheets.com,
it used to be Waxess Holdings and International Vine. In other words, it
used to be a wine company. It's one of those little scammy OTC traded
companies that puts up a business plan that won't be executed and then
changes plans on a dime.
> As stated in their press release: "Upon learning that the AirTouch
> trademark was available, management decided that this mark better
> communicated its product and service message ..."
>
> That answers that.
Thanks. I missed that.
> From my reading of some 8-K's and other filings through pinksheets.com,
> it used to be Waxess Holdings and International Vine. In other words, it
> used to be a wine company. It's one of those little scammy OTC traded
> companies that puts up a business plan that won't be executed and then
> changes plans on a dime.
And confusing the public with that iconic brand name would fit that
purpose quite well.
In news:MPG.28ea642f78383cef98983d@news.justthe.net Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> As far as I know, AirTouch Cellular - which, at that point, was owned
> by British telecomm giant Vodafone - ceased to exist. Vodafone is the
> minority partner in VZW; they own 45%, Verizon owns 55%.
US West's "New Vector" division offered wireless service under the name
AirTouch back in the mid 90s (my phone number was 612-AIR-Txxx). That
later changed to Verizon.
Of course, US West turned into Qwest, now consumed by CenturyLink.
On 04 Oct 2011 12:57:46 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, AirTouch Cellular - which, at that point, was owned
>> by British telecomm giant Vodafone - ceased to exist. Vodafone is the
>> minority partner in VZW; they own 45%, Verizon owns 55%.
>
> US West's "New Vector" division offered wireless service under the name
> AirTouch back in the mid 90s (my phone number was 612-AIR-Txxx). That
> later changed to Verizon.
>
> Of course, US West turned into Qwest, now consumed by CenturyLink.
US West turned into _Crap_ -- *then* it turned into Qwest.
> US West turned into _Crap_ -- *then* it turned into Qwest.
Mountain Bell was _Crap_, then it turned into US West which was _Crap_,
then it turned into Qwest which was _Crap_ and now it's Century Link
which is _Crap_.
AirTouch is still alive? 
Linear Mode
