accepting removable security modules, there is a risk that we riskwould have reduced sales if competitors produce DBS set-top boxes.

Export ControlTelecommunications Regulation

We are required to obtain importcontribute a percentage of our revenues from telecommunications services to the Universal Service Fund to support mechanisms that subsidize the provision of services to low-income consumers, high-cost areas, schools, libraries and export licenses fromrural health care providers. This percentage is set each calendar quarter by the United States governmentFCC. Current FCC rules permit us to receivepass this Universal Service Fund contribution through to our customers.  The FCC also requires broadband Internet access and deliver componentsInternet telephony service providers to comply with the requirements of direct-to-home satellite television systems.the Federal Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”). CALEA generally requires telecommunications carriers, including satellite-based carriers, to ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to conduct lawfully-authorized surveillance of users of their services.  In addition, as a provider of interconnected VOIP services, we are required to abide by a number of rules related to telephony service, including rules dealing with the deliveryprotection of customer information and the processing of emergency calls.

State and Local Regulation

We are also regulated by other federal agencies, and state and local authorities.  While the FCC has preempted many state and local regulations that impair the installation and use of VSATs and other consumer satellite dishes, our businesses nonetheless may be adversely affected by state and local regulation, including, among others, zoning regulations that impair the ability to install these consumer satellite earth station antennas.

International Regulation

In addition, we are subject to regulation by the ITU and certain foreign governments and national communications regulatory authorities of other countries in which we, and under certain circumstances our resellers and distributors, provide services or operate earth stations.  The laws and regulatory requirements regulating access to satellite systems vary from country to country. In certain countries, a license is required to provide our services and to operate satellite earth stations. The application procedure can be time-consuming and costly in some countries, and the terms of licenses vary for different countries.  In some countries, there may be restrictions on our ability to interconnect with the local switched telephone network. In addition, in certain countries, there are limitations on the fees that can be charged for the services we provide.

Many countries permit competition in the provision of voice, data or video services, the ownership of the equipment needed to provide telecommunications services and the provision of transponder capacity to that country. We believe that this trend should continue due to commitments by many countries to open their satellite markets to competition. In other countries, however, a single entity, often the government-owned telecommunications authority, may hold a monopoly on the ownership and operation of telecommunications facilities or on the provision of telecommunications to, from or within the country. In those cases, we may be required to negotiate for access to service or equipment provided by that monopoly entity, and we may not be able to obtain favorable rates or other terms.

The International Telecommunication Union Frequency Registration. The orbital location and frequencies for certain of our satellites are subject to the frequency registration and coordination process of the ITU. The ITU Radio Regulations define the international rules, regulations and rights for a satellite to use specific radio frequencies at a specific orbital location.  These rules differ depending on the type of service to be provided and the spectrum to be used by the satellite.  On our behalf, the FCC and Ofcom have made filings with the ITU for SPACEWAY 3, EchoStar XVII/Jupiter and for other potential future satellites we may build or acquire.  The U.S. government has also filed requests for modification of the ITU Region 2 Broadcasting-Satellite Service (“BSS”) plan relating to certain of our DBS satellites.  The FCC and Ofcom may make future ITU filings with respect to our proposed FSS and DBS satellites.  In the event the international coordination process that is triggered by ITU filings under applicable rules is not successfully completed, or that the requests for modification of the BSS plan are not granted by the ITU, we will have to operate the applicable satellite(s) on a non-interference basis.  If we cannot do so, we may have to cease operating such satellite(s) at the affected orbital location.  We cannot be sure of the successful

13

Table of Contents

The costs of a satellite network may exceed those of a terrestrial-based network, especially in areas that have experienced significant DSL and cable Internet build-out.  It may become more difficult for us to compete with terrestrial providers as the number of these areas increases and the cost of their network and hardware services declines.  We also compete for enterprise clients with other satellite network providers, satellite providers that are targeting small and medium businesses and smaller independent systems integrators on procurement projects.

The consumer network communications market is highly competitive.  We may be unsuccessful in competing effectively against fiber, DSL, cable service providers and other satellite broadband providers in the consumer market.

We face competition in our consumer group primarily from fiber, DSL and cable Internet service providers.  Also, other telecommunications, satellite and wireless broadband companies have launched or are planning the launch of consumer satellite Internet access services in competition with ours in North America.  Some of these competitors offer consumer services and hardware at lower prices than ours.  In addition, terrestrial alternatives do not require our external dish which may limit customer acceptance of our products.

Our primary competitor for consumer satellite Internet access services is ViaSat Communications, which is owned by ViaSat.  Following the commencement of service on ViaSat-1 by ViaSat Communications and prior to the Spin-Offcommencement of service on EchoStar XVII/Jupiter, ViaSat Communications may be in a better position economically to offer faster connection speeds than us, and there can therefore be no assurance that our product offerings will remain competitive with those of ViaSat Communications.  As discussed above, there can be no assurance that the expected launch of EchoStar XVII/Jupiter in the summer of 2012 will not be delayed or will not fail.

We are dependent upon third-party providers for components, manufacturing, installation services, and customer support services, and our results of operations may be materially adversely affected if any of these third-party providers fail to appropriately deliver the contracted goods or services.

We are dependent upon third-party services and products provided to us, including the following:

·Components.  A limited number of suppliers and in some cases a single supplier manufacture some of the key components required to build our products.  These key components may not be continually available and we may not be able to forecast our component requirements sufficiently in advance, which may have a detrimental effect on supply.  If we are required to change suppliers for any reason, we would experience a delay in manufacturing our products if another supplier is not able to meet our requirements on a timely basis.  In addition, if we are unable to obtain the necessary volumes of components on favorable terms or prices on a timely basis, we may be unable to produce our products at competitive prices and we may be unable to satisfy demand from our customers.

·Commodity Price Risk.  Many of our products contain components whose base raw materials have undergone dramatic cost fluctuations in the last 24 months.  Fluctuations in pricing of raw materials have the ability to affect our product costs.  Although we have been successful in offsetting or mitigating our exposure to these fluctuations, such changes could have an adverse impact on our product costs.

·Manufacturing.  While we develop and manufacture prototypes for our products, we use contract manufacturers to produce a significant portion of our hardware.  If these contract manufacturers fail to provide products that meet our specifications in a timely manner, then our customer relationships may be harmed.

·Installation and customer support services.  Each of our North American and international operations utilizes a network of third-party installers to deploy our hardware.  In addition, a portion of our customer support and management is provided by offshore call centers.  Since we provide customized services for our customers that are essential to their operations, a decline in levels of service or attention to the needs of our customers could adversely affect our reputation, renewal rates and ability to win new business.

32

Table of Contents

We currently have unused satellite capacity in our EchoStar Satellite Services segment, and our results of operations may be materially adversely affected if we are not able to lease more of this capacity to third parties.

While we are currently evaluating various opportunities to make profitable use of our satellite capacity (including, but not limited to, supplying satellite capacity for new international ventures), we do not have firm plans to utilize all of our satellite capacity.  In addition, especially in light of the potential continued lack of demand for satellite services as a result of sustained economic weakness, there can be no assurance that we can successfully develop the business opportunities we currently plan to pursue with this capacity.  If we are unable to lease our excess satellite capacity to third parties, our margins would be negatively impacted and we may be required to record impairments related to our satellites.

The failure to adequately anticipate the need for transponder capacity or the inability to obtain transponder capacity for our Hughes segment could harm our results of operations.

Our Hughes segment has made substantial contractual commitments for transponder capacity based on our existing customer contracts and backlog, as well as anticipated future business, to the extent our existing broadband customers are not expected to utilize our SPACEWAY 3 satellite.  If future demand does not meet our expectations, we will be committed to maintaining excess transponder capacity for which we will have no, or insufficient, revenues to cover our costs, which would have a negative impact on our margins and results of operations.  We have transponder capacity commitments, generally for two to five year terms, with third parties to cover different geographical areas or support different applications and features; therefore, we may not be able to quickly or easily adjust our capacity to changes in demand.  If we only purchase transponder capacity based on existing contracts and bookings, capacity for certain types of coverage in the future that cannot be readily served by SPACEWAY 3 may be unavailable to us, and we may not be able to satisfy certain needs of our customers, which could result in a loss of possible new business and could negatively impact the margins earned for those services.  At present, until the launch and operation of additional satellites, there is limited availability of capacity on the Ku-band frequencies in North America.  In addition, the FSS industry has seen consolidation in the past decade, and today, the three main FSS providers in North America and a number of smaller regional providers own and operate the current satellites that are available for our capacity needs.  The failure of any of these FSS providers to replace existing satellite assets at the end of their useful lives or a downturn in their industry as a whole could reduce or interrupt the Ku-band capacity available to us.  If we are not able to renew our capacity leases at economically viable rates, or if capacity is not available due to any problems of the FSS providers, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected, to the extent SPACEWAY 3 and EchoStar XVII/Jupiter are unable to satisfy the associated demand.

If our products contain defects, we could be subject to significant costs to correct such defects and our product and network service contracts could be delayed or cancelled, which could adversely affect our revenues.

The products and the networks we deploy are highly complex, and some may contain defects when first introduced or when new versions or enhancements are released, despite extensive testing and our quality control procedures.  In addition, many of our products and network services are designed to interface with our customers’ existing networks, each of which has different specifications and utilizes multiple protocol standards.  Our products and services must interoperate with the other products and services within our customers’ networks, as well as with future products and services that might be added to these networks, to meet our customers’ requirements.  The occurrence of any defects, errors or failures in our products or network services could result in: (i) additional costs to correct such defects; (ii) cancellation of orders; (iii) a reduction in revenue backlog; (iv) product returns or recalls; (v) diversion of our resources; and (vi) the issuance of credits to customers and other losses to us, our customers or end users.  Any of these occurrences could also result in the loss of or delay in market acceptance of our products and services and loss of sales, which would harm our reputation and our business and adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

We may face difficulties in accurately assessing and collecting contributions towards the Universal Service Fund.

As a provider of telecommunications in the U.S., we are presently required to contribute a fee, which is based upon a percentage of our revenues from telecommunications services, to the Universal Service Fund to support mechanisms that subsidize the provision of services to low-income consumers, high-cost areas, schools, libraries and rural health

33

Table of Contents

care providers.  This percentage is set each calendar quarter by the FCC. Current FCC rules permit us to pass this Universal Service Fund contribution onto our customers.

Because our customer contracts often include both telecommunications services, which create such support obligations, and other goods and services, which do not, it can be difficult to determine which portion of our revenues forms the basis for this contribution and the amount that we can recover from our customers.  If the FCC, which oversees the support mechanisms, or a court or other governmental entity were to determine that we computed our contribution obligation incorrectly or passed the wrong amount onto our customers, we could become subject to additional assessments, liabilities, or other financial penalties.  In addition, the FCC is considering substantial changes to its Universal Service Fund contribution and distribution rules.  These changes could impact our future contribution obligations and those of third parties that provide communication services to our business.  Any such change to the Universal Service Fund contribution rules could adversely affect our costs of providing service to our customers. In addition, changes to the Universal Service Fund distribution rules could intensify the competition we face by offering subsidies to competing firms and/or technologies.

Our foreign operations expose us to regulatory risks and restrictions not present in our domestic operations.

Our operations outside the U.S. accounted for approximately 19.3%, 14.5% and 15.9% of our revenues for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.  We expect our foreign operations to continue to represent a significant portion of our business.  We have operations in Brazil, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, the Russian Federation, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and China, among other nations.  Over the last 20 years, Hughes Communications has sold products in over 100 countries. Our foreign operations involve varying degrees of risks and uncertainties inherent in doing business abroad. Such risks include:

·Complications in complying with restrictions on foreign ownership and investment and limitations on repatriation.  We may not be permitted to own our operations in some countries and may have to enter into partnership or joint venture relationships. Many foreign legal regimes restrict our repatriation of earnings to the U.S. from our subsidiaries and joint venture entities. Applicable law in such foreign countries may also limit our ability to distribute or access our assets in certain circumstances. In such event, we will not have access to the cash flow and assets of our joint ventures.

·Difficulties in following a variety of foreign laws and regulations, such as those relating to data content retention, privacy and employee welfare.  Our international operations are subject to the laws of many different jurisdictions that may differ significantly from U.S. law.  For example, local political or intellectual property law may hold us responsible for the data that is transmitted over our network by our customers.  Also, other nations have more stringent employee welfare laws that guarantee perquisites that we must offer. Compliance with these laws may lead to increased operations costs, loss of business opportunities or violations that result in fines or other penalties.

·Restrictions on space station landing rights/coordination.  Satellite market access and landing rights are dependent on the national regulations established by foreign governments, including, but not limited to: (a) national coordination requirements and registration requirements for satellites; and (b) reporting requirements of national telecommunications regulators with respect to service provision and satellite performance.

·Financial and legal constraints and obligations.  Operating pursuant to foreign licenses subjects us to certain financial constraints and obligations, including, but not limited to: (a) tax liabilities that may or may not be dependent on revenues; (b) the burden of creating and maintaining additional facilities and staffing in foreign jurisdictions; and (c) legal regulations requiring that we make available “free” satellite capacity for national social programming, which may impact our revenue.

·Significant competition in our international markets.  Outside North America, we have traditionally competed for hardware and services sales primarily in Europe, Brazil and India and focused only on hardware revenues in other regions. In Europe, we face intense competition which is not expected to abate in the near future.

34

Table of Contents

·Changes in exchange rates between foreign currencies and the U.S. dollar.  We conduct our business and incur cost in the local currency of a number of the countries in which we operate.  Accordingly, our results of operations are reported in the relevant local currency and then translated to U.S. dollars at the applicable currency exchange rate for inclusion in our financial statements.  These fluctuations in currency exchange rates have affected, and may in the future affect, revenue, profits and cash earned on international sales.  In addition, we sell our products and services and acquire supplies and components from countries that historically have been, and may continue to be, susceptible to recessions or currency devaluation.

·Greater exposure to the possibility of economic instability, the disruption of operations from labor and political disturbances, expropriation or war.  As we conduct operations throughout the world, we could be subject to regional or national economic downturns or instability, labor or political disturbances or conflicts of various sizes.  Any of these disruptions could detrimentally affect our sales in the affected region or country or lead to damage to, or expropriation of, our property or danger to our personnel.

·Competition with large or state-owned enterprises and/or regulations that effectively limit our operations and favor local competitors.  Many of the countries in which we conduct business have traditionally had state owned or state granted monopolies on telecommunications services that favor an incumbent service provider.  We face competition from these favored and entrenched companies in countries that have not deregulated.  The slower pace of deregulation in these countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America, has adversely affected the growth of our business in these regions.

·Customer credit risks.  Customer credit risks are exacerbated in foreign operations because there is often little information available about the credit histories of customers in the foreign countries in which we operate.

Although we expect that the Hughes Acquisition will benefit us, those expected benefits may not occur because of the complexity of integration and other challenges.

We acquired Hughes Communications on June 8, 2011.  Achieving the expected benefits of the Hughes Acquisition will depend in part on our ability to integrate Hughes Communications’ operations, technology and personnel in a timely and efficient manner.  We have incurred substantial direct transaction costs associated with the Hughes Acquisition, and will incur additional costs associated with consolidation and integration of operations.  The integration of Hughes Communications is complex, time-consuming, and expensive, and may disrupt our business or result in the loss of our or Hughes Communications’ customers or key employees or the diversion of our management’s attention.  In addition, the integration process may strain our financial and managerial controls and reporting systems and procedures. This may result in the diversion of management and financial resources from our principal core business objectives.  There can be no assurance that the integration will be completed as quickly as we expect or that the Hughes Acquisition will achieve its expected benefits.  Moreover, issues arising from the integration of EchoStar and Hughes Communications, including, among others, differences in corporate culture, may affect our ability to retain technically skilled employees of either company.  If we are unable to attract and retain technically skilled employees, we may not be able to respond to changes in technologies and, as a result, our competitive position could be materially and adversely affected.

If the total costs of the Hughes Acquisition exceed estimates or if the expected benefits of the Hughes Acquisition do not exceed the total costs of the Hughes Acquisition, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

35

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

We may not be able to resolve any potential conflicts of interest with DISH Network and, even if we do so, the resolution may be less favorable to us than if we were dealing with an unaffiliated party.

We do not have any agreements with DISH Network that restrict us from selling our products to competitors of DISH Network, nor do we have any agreement that prevents DISH Network from purchasing products from our competitors. We also do not have any agreements with DISH Network that would prevent us from competing with each other.

In addition, the corporate opportunity policy set forth in our articles of incorporation addresses potential conflicts of interest for officers and directors of DISH Network who are also officers or directors of us. This policy could restrict our ability to take advantage of certain corporate opportunities.

Risks Relating to our Common Stock and the Securities Market

We cannot assure you that there will not be deficiencies leading to material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting.

We periodically evaluate and test our internal control over financial reporting to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  OurOn June 8, 2011, we completed the Hughes Acquisition.  We are currently integrating policies, processes, people, technology and operations for the combined company.  Management will continue to evaluate our internal control over financial reporting as we execute integration activities. Except as discussed above, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2009.2011.  If in the future we are unable to report that our internal control over financial reporting is effective (or if our auditors do not agree with our assessment of the effectiveness of, or are unable to express an opinion on, our internal control over financial reporting), investors, customers and business partners could lose confidence in the accuracy of our financial reports, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on our business, investor confidence in our financial results may weaken, and our stock price may suffer.

It may be difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so may be beneficial to our shareholders, because of our capital structure.

Certain provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company that a shareholder may consider favorable.  These provisions include the following:

•

·a capital structure with multiple classes of common stock:  a Class A that entitles the holders to one vote per share, a Class B that entitles the holders to ten votes per share, a Class C that entitles the holders to one vote per share, except upon a change in control of our company in which case the holders of Class C are entitled to ten votes per share and a non-voting Class D;



·

•

a provision that authorizes the issuance of "blank check"“blank check” preferred stock, which could be issued by our Board of Directors to increase the number of outstanding shares and thwart a takeover attempt;



·

•

a provision limiting who may call special meetings of shareholders; and



·

•

a provision establishing advance notice requirements for nominations of candidates for election to our Board of Directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by shareholders at shareholder meetings.

In addition, pursuant to our certificate of incorporation we have a significant amount of authorized and unissued stock that would allow our Board of Directors to issue shares to persons friendly to current management, thereby protecting the continuity of management, or which could be used to dilute the stock ownership of persons seeking to obtain control of us.

Table of Contents

We are controlled by one principal shareholderstockholder who is our Chairman.

Charles W. Ergen, our Chairman, beneficially owns approximately 46.3%50.7% of our total equity securities (assuming conversion of only the Class B Common Stock held by Mr. Ergen into Class A Common Stock) and possesses approximately 61.2%75.6% of the total voting power.  Mr. Ergen'sErgen’s beneficial ownership of us excludes 16,276,2148,734,250 shares of our Class A Common Stock issuable upon conversion of shares of our Class B Common Stock currently held by certain trusts established by Mr. Ergen for the benefit of his family.  These trusts beneficially own approximately 32.1%18.3% of our total equity securities (assuming conversion of only the Class B Common Stock held by such trusts

37