UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Form 10-Q

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

We make “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 throughout this document. Whenever you read a statement that is not simply a statement of historical fact (such as when we describe what we “believe,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” “expect” or “anticipate” will occur and other similar statements), you must remember that our expectations may not be correct, even though we believe they are reasonable. We do not guarantee that theany future transactions andor events described in this documentherein will happen as described or that they will happen at all. You should read this document completely and with the understanding that actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. Whether actual events or results will conform with our expectations and predictions is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. TheseThe risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following:

	•		we face intense and increasing competition from the satellite and cable television industry; new competitors may enter the subscription television business, and new technologies may increase competition;
	•		DISH Network subscriber growth may decrease, subscriber turnover may increase and subscriber acquisition costs may increase;
	•		satellite programming signals have been pirated and couldwill continue to be pirated in the future; pirating could cause us to lose subscribers and revenue, orand result in higher costs to us;
	•		programming costs may increase beyond our current expectations; we may be unable to obtain or renew programming agreements on acceptable terms or at all; existing programming agreements could be subject to cancellation;
	•		weakness in the global or U.S. economy may harm our business generally, and adverse local political or economic developments may occur in some of our markets;
•		the regulations governing our industry may change;
•		our satellite launches may be delayed or fail, or our satellites may fail in orbit prior to the end of their scheduled lives;
•		we currently do not have traditional commercial insurance covering losses incurred from the failure of satellite launches and/or in orbitin-orbit satellites and we may be unable to settle outstanding claims with insurers;
	•		the regulations governing our industry may change;
	•		our satellite launches may be delayed or fail and our satellites may fail prematurely in orbit;
	•		service interruptions arising from technical anomalies on satellites or on groundon-ground components of our DBS system, or caused by war, terrorist activities or natural disasters, may cause customer cancellations or otherwise harm our business;
	•		we may be unable to obtain needed retransmission consents, FCCFederal Communications Commission (“FCC”) authorizations or export licenses;licenses, and we may lose our current or future authorizations;
	•		we are party to various lawsuits which, if adversely decided, could have a significant adverse impact on our business;
	•		we may be unable to obtain patent licenses from holders of intellectual property or redesign our products to avoid patent infringement;
	•		sales of digital equipment and related services to international direct-to-home service providers may decrease;
	•		we are highly leveraged and subject to numerous constraints on our ability to raise additional debt;
	•		future acquisitions, business combinations, strategic partnerships, divestitures and divestituresother significant transactions may involve additional uncertainties;
	•		the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, consequences of the war in Iraq, and the possibility of war or hostilities relating to other countries, and changes in international political conditions as a result of these events may continue to affect the U.S. and the global economy and may increase other risks; and
	•		we may face other risks described from time to time in periodic and current reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.Commission (“SEC”).

All cautionary statements made herein should be read as being applicable to all forward-looking statements wherever they appear. In this connection, investors should consider the risks described herein and should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements.

i

We assume no responsibility for updating forward-looking information contained or incorporated by reference herein or in other reports we file with the SEC.

In this document, the words “we,” “our” and “us” refer to EchoStar Communications Corporation and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires. “EDBS” refers to EchoStar DBS Corporation and its subsidiaries.

iii

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS —– Continued
(Unaudited)

Actual results may differ from previously estimated amounts. Estimates and assumptions are reviewed periodically, and the effects of revisions are reflected in the period they occur.

Comprehensive Income (Loss)

The components of comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, are as follows:

“Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)income” presented on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets consists of the accumulated net unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities and foreign currency translation adjustments, net of deferred taxes.

Basic and Diluted EarningsIncome (Loss) Per Share

Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsStandard No. 128, “Earnings Per Share” (“FAS 128”) requires entities to present both basic earnings per share (“EPS”) and diluted EPS. Basic EPS excludes dilution and is computed by dividing income (loss) available to common shareholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if stock options were exercised and convertible securities were converted to common stock.

The following table reflects the basic and diluted weighted-average shares:

As of March 31, 2004 and 2003, there were approximately 17.3 million and 21.3 million options for shares of class A common stock outstanding, respectively. We recorded a net loss attributable to common shareholders for the sixthree month period ending June 30, 2002.March 31, 2004. Therefore, common stock equivalents and convertible securities are excluded from the computation of diluted earningsincome (loss) per share for thatthis period since the effect of including them is anti-dilutive.antidilutive. Since we reported net income attributable to common shareholders for the three month periods ending June 30, 2003 and 2002 and for the six month period ending June 30,March 31, 2003, the potential dilution from stock options exercisable into approximately 5.6 million shares of common stock for these periods wasthis period, computed using the treasury stock method based on the average fair market value of the Classclass A common stock for the period. The following table reflectsperiod, were included in our weighted-average diluted common shares outstanding. Of the basic and diluted weighted-average shares outstanding used to calculate basic and diluted earnings per share.

As of June 30, 2002 and 2003, options to purchase a total of approximately 21.0 million and 18.417.3 million shares outstanding as of Class A common stockMarch 31, 2004, options to purchase approximately 7.6 million shares were outstanding respectively. The 4 7/8% Convertible Subordinated Notes and the 5 3/4% Convertible Subordinated Notes were convertible into approximately 22.0 million shares and 23.1 million shares of Class A common stock, respectively, for both the periods ended June 30, 2002 and 2003. The convertible notes areunder a

5

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS —– Continued
(Unaudited)

not included in the diluted EPS calculation as the effect of the conversion of the notes would be anti-dilutive. Of the options outstanding as of June 30, 2003, approximately 8.3 million shares were outstanding under a long termlong-term incentive plan. Vesting of these options is contingent upon meeting certain longer-term goals which have not yet been achieved. As such,Accordingly, the long-term incentive options are not included in the diluted EPS calculation.

As of March 31, 2004, our 5 3/4% Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2008 and our 3% Convertible Subordinated Note due 2010 were convertible into approximately 23.1 million shares and 6.9 million shares of class A common stock, respectively. The convertible notes are not included in the diluted EPS calculation as their conversion would be antidilutive.

Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation

We have elected to follow the intrinsic value method of accounting under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” (“APB 25”) and related interpretations in accounting for our stock-based compensation plans. Under APB 25, we generally do not recognize compensation expense on the issuancegrant of stockoptions under our Stock Incentive Plan because typically the option terms are typically fixed and typically the exercise price equals or exceeds the market price of the underlying stock on the date of grant. In October 1995,We apply the Financial Accounting Standards Board issueddisclosure only provisions Financial Accounting Standard No. 123, “Accounting and Disclosure of Stock-Based Compensation,” (“FAS No. 123”) which established an alternative method of expense recognition for stock-based compensation awards to employees based on fair values. We elected to not adopt FAS No. 123 for expense recognition purposes..

Pro forma information regarding net income and earnings per share is required by FAS No. 123 and Financial Accounting Standard No. 148, “Accounting and Disclosure of Stock-Based Compensation — Transition and Disclosure,” (“FAS No. 148”). Pro forma information has been determined as if we had accounted for our stock-based compensation plans using the fair market value method prescribed by FAS No. 123.that statement. For purposes of pro forma disclosures, the estimated fair value of the options is amortized to expense over the options’ vesting period on a straight-line basis. All options are initially assumed to vest. Compensation previously recognized is reversed to the extent unvested options are forfeited upon termination of the options. A value is not attributed to options that employees forfeit because they fail to satisfy specified service or performance related conditions.employment. The following table as required by FAS No. 148, illustrates the effect on net income (loss) and income (loss) per share if we had accounted for our stock-based compensation plans using the fair value method prescribed by FAS No. 123 (in thousands, except per share amounts):

For purposes of this pro forma presentation, the fair value of each option grant was estimated at the date of the grant using a Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted-average assumptions for grants during the three and six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2003.

6

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

model. The Black-Scholes option valuation model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of exchange traded options which have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. In addition, optionConsequently, our estimate of fair value may differ from other valuation models requiremodels. Further, the Black-Scholes model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions including expected stock price characteristics which are significantly different from those of traded options, and because changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimate, the existing models domodel does not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of stock-based compensation awards.

6

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – Continued
(Unaudited)

Non-cash, stock-based compensation

During 1999, we adopted an incentivea plan under our 1995 Stock Incentive Plan, thatwhich provided certain key employees with incentives including stock options. The table below shows the amount of compensation expense recognized under this performance-based plan for the three and six months ended June 30, 2002March 31, 2004 and 2003. The expense decrease from prior year for both the three and six monthsThere is primarily attributable to stock option forfeitures resulting from employee terminations. Theno remaining deferred compensation of $4.7 million as of June 30, 2003, which will be reduced by future forfeitures, if any, willto be recognized over the remaining vesting period, ending onunder this plan subsequent to March 31, 2004.

We report all non-cash compensation based on stock option appreciation as a single expense category in our accompanyingcondensed consolidated statements of operations. The following table indicatesshows the other expense categories in our condensed consolidated statements of operations that would be affected if non-cash, stock-based compensation was allocated to the same expense categories as the base compensation for key employees who participate in the 1999 incentive plan.

In addition, optionsOptions to purchase 8.37.6 million shares wereare outstanding pursuant to a long-term incentive plan under our 1995 Stock Incentive plan as of June 30, 2003 andMarch 31, 2004. These options were granted with exercise prices at least equal to the market value of the underlying shares on the dates they were issued during 1999, 2000 and 2001 pursuant to a separate long term incentive plan under our 1995 Stock Incentive Plan.2001. The weighted-average exercise price of these options is $8.85.$9.21. Vesting of these options is contingent upon meeting certain longer-term goals which have not yet been achieved. Consequently, no compensation was recorded during the sixthree months ended June 30, 2003March 31, 2004 related to these long-term options. We will record the related compensation atupon the achievement if ever, of the performance goals. Suchgoals, if ever. This compensation, if recorded, would likely result in material non-cash, stock-based compensation expense in our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

7

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

New Accounting Pronouncements

In November 2002, the EITF reached a consensus on Issue No. 00-21, “Accounting for Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables.” EITF Issue No. 00-21 governs arrangements involving multiple deliverables and how the related revenue should be measured and allocated to each deliverable. EITF Issue No. 00-21 will apply to revenue arrangements entered into after June 30, 2003; however, upon adoption, the EITF allows the guidance to be applied on a retroactive basis, with the change, if any, reported as a cumulative effect of accounting change in the consolidated statements of operations. The implementation of this new EITF issue is not expected to have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued FASB Interpretation No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities” (“FIN 46”), which addresses the consolidation of variable interest entities as defined in the Interpretation. FIN 46 requires an assessment of certain investments to determine if they are variable interest entities. FIN 46 is immediately effective for all variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003. For variable interest entities created before February 1, 2003, the provisions of FIN 46 must be applied no later than the beginning of the first interim period or annual reporting period beginning after June 15, 2003. In addition, if it is reasonably possible that an enterprise will consolidate or disclose information about a variable interest entity, the enterprise shall discuss the following information in all financial statements issued after January 31, 2003: (i) the nature, purpose, size or activities of the variable interest entity and (ii) the enterprise’s maximum exposure to loss as a result of its involvement with the variable interest entity. We implemented FIN 46 effective January 1, 2003. Implementation of FIN 46 did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

3. Marketable and Non-Marketable Investment Securities

3.

Marketable and Non-Marketable Investment Securities

We currently classify all marketable investment securities as available-for-sale. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, weWe adjust the carrying value of our available-for-sale marketable investment securities to fair market value and report the related temporary unrealized gains and losses as a separate component of “Total stockholders’ deficit,deficit”, net of related deferred income tax, if applicable.tax. Declines in the fair market value of a marketable investment security which are estimated to be “other than temporary” must beare recognized in the statementcondensed consolidated statements of operations, thus establishing a new cost basis for suchthe investment. We evaluate our marketable investment securities portfolio on a quarterly basis to determine whether declines in the fair market value of these securities are other than temporary. This quarterly evaluation consists of reviewing, among other things, the fair market value of our marketable investment securities compared to the carrying value of these securities,amount, the historical volatility of the price of each security and any market and company specific factors related to each security. Generally, absent specific factors to the contrary, declines in the fair market value of investments below cost basis for a period of less than six months are considered to be temporary. Declines in the fair market value of investments for a period of six to nine months are evaluated on a case by case basis to determine whether any company or market-specific factors exist which would indicate that suchthese declines are other than temporary. Declines in the fair market value of investments below cost basis for greater than nine months are considered other than temporary and are recorded as charges to earnings, absent specific factors to the contrary.

As of June 30, 2003,March 31, 2004, we recordedhad unrealized gains of approximately $65.3$107.9 million as a separate componentpart of accumulated other comprehensive income within “Total stockholders’ deficit.deficit”. During the sixthree months ended June 30, 2003,March 31, 2004, we also recorded an aggregate charge to earnings for other than temporary declines in the fair market value of certain of our marketable investment securities of approximately $2.0 million, and established a new cost basis for these securities. This amount does not include realized net gains of approximately $2.0$1.1 million on sales of marketable investment securities.

7

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – Continued
(Unaudited)

Our approximately $2.82$2.9 billion of restricted and unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and marketable investment securities includesinclude debt and equity securities which we own for strategic and financial purposes. The fair market value of these strategic marketable investment securities aggregated approximately $168.9$282.8 million as of June 30, 2003. During the six months ended June 30, 2003, ourMarch 31, 2004. Our portfolio generally, and our strategic investments particularly, experienced and continue to experience volatility. If the fair market value of our marketable securities portfolio does not remain above cost basis or if we become aware of any market or company specific factors that indicate that the carrying value of certain of our strategic marketable securities

8

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

is impaired, we may be required to record charges to earnings in future periods equal to the amount of the decline in fair value.

We also have made strategic equity investments in certain non-marketable investment securities. These securities are not publicly traded. Our ability to realize value from our strategic investments in companies that are not publicpublicly traded is dependent on the success of their business and their ability to obtain sufficient capital to execute their business plans. Since private markets are not as liquid as public markets, there is also increased risk that we will not be able to sell these investments, or that when we desire to sell them we will not be able to obtain full value for them. We account for unconsolidated investments under either the equity method or cost method of accounting. We evaluate our non-marketable investment securitiesinvestments on a quarterly basis to determine whether the carrying value of each investment is impaired.other than temporary impairments exist. This quarterly evaluation consists of reviewing, among other things, company business plans and current financial statements, if available, for factors which may indicate an impairment in our investment. SuchThese factors may include, but are not limited to, cash flow concerns, material litigation, violations of debt covenants and changes in business strategy. During the sixthree months ended June 30, 2003,March 31, 2004, we did not record any impairment charges with respect to these instruments.

4. Inventories

4.

Inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

5. Property and Equipment

5.

Satellites

EchoStar III

During June 2003,January 2004, a transponderTraveling Wave Tube Amplifier (“TWTA”) pair on our EchoStar III satellite failed, resulting in a temporary interruptionloss of service. Operationservice on one of the satellite was quickly restored.our licensed transponders. An additional TWTA pair failed in March 2004. Including the six transponderseven TWTA pairs that malfunctioned in prior years, these anomalies have resulted in the failure of a total of fourteen transponders18 TWTA’s on the satellite to date. While originally designed to operate a maximum of 32 transponders at any given time, the satellite was equipped with a total of 44 transpondersTWTA’s to provide redundancy, andredundancy. EchoStar III can now operate a maximum of 30 transponders. We are26 transponders but due to redundancy switching limitations and the specific channel authorizations, currently it can only licensed byoperate on 17 of the 19 FCC to operate 11 transpondersauthorized frequencies at the 61.5 degree west orbital location (togetherlocation. In accordance with the provision of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets” (“FAS 144”), we review our long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an additional six leased transponders), whereasset may not be recoverable. We have considered the relevant cash flows, estimated operating results and other information in evaluating the performance of EchoStar

8

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – Continued
(Unaudited)

III in accordance with FAS 144 and have determined the carrying value of the satellite is fully recoverable. We will continue to evaluate the performance of EchoStar III is located.as new events or changes in circumstances become known.

EchoStar V

During 2000, 2001 and 2002,Our EchoStar V satellite is equipped with a total of 96 solar array strings, 92 of which are required to assure full power availability for the 12-year design life of the satellite. Prior to 2004, EchoStar V experienced anomalies resulting in the loss of three4 solar array strings, and during January 2003,strings. During March 2004, EchoStar V experienced anomalies resulting in the loss oflost an additional solar array string. The satellite has a total of approximately 96string, reducing solar array strings andpower to approximately 92 are required95% of its original capacity. While originally designed to assure full power availabilityoperate a maximum of 32 transponders at any given time, the solar array anomalies may prevent the use of all 32 transponders for the estimated 12-yearfull design life of the satellite. In addition, during January 2003, EchoStar Vthe momentum wheel anomalies previously experienced an anomalyresulted in more rapid use of fuel and a corresponding minor reduction of spacecraft electronic component which affects the ability to receive telemetry from certain on-board equipment. Other methods of communication have been established to alleviate the effects of the failed

9

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

component.life. An investigation of the anomalies is continuing. Until the root causes are finally determined, there can be no assurance that future anomalies will not cause further losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite. EchoStar V is not currently carrying any traffic and is being utilized as an in-orbit spare. We will continue to evaluate the performance of EchoStar V and may be required to reduce the remaining depreciable life as new events or circumstances develop.

EchoStar VII

During March 2004, our EchoStar VII satellite lost a solar array circuit. EchoStar VII was designed with 24 solar array circuits and electronic component anomalies, noneneeds 23 for the spacecraft to be fully operational at end of which havelife. While this anomaly is not expected to reduce the estimated design life of the satellite to less than 12 years and has not impacted commercial operation of the satellite to date, an investigation of the anomaly is continuing. Until the root cause of these anomalies iscauses are finally determined, there can be no assurance future anomalies will not cause further losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite.

EchoStar VIII

During 2002, two of the thrusters on EchoStar VIII experienced anomalous events and are not currently in use. During March 2003, an additional thruster on EchoStar VIII experienced an anomalous event and is not currently in use. The satellite is equipped with a total of 12 thrusters that help control spacecraft location, attitude, and pointing and is currently operating using a combination of the other nine thrusters. This workaround requires more frequent maneuvers to maintain the satellite at its specified orbital location, which are less efficient and therefore result in accelerated fuel use. In addition, the workaround will require certain gyroscopes to be utilized for aggregate periods of time substantially in excess of their originally qualified limits. However, neither of these workarounds are expected to reduce the estimated design life of the satellite to less than 12 years. An investigation of the thruster anomalies including the development of additional workarounds for long term operations is continuing. None of these events has impacted commercial operation of the satellite to date. Until the root cause of these anomalies has been finally determined, there can be no assurance that these or future anomalies will not cause further losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite.

EchoStar VIII is equipped with two solar arrays which convert solar energy into power for the satellite. Those arrays rotate continuously to maintain optimal exposure to the sun. During June and July 2003, EchoStar VIII experienced anomalies that temporarily halted rotation of one of the solar arrays. The array is currently fully functional but rotating in a mode recommended by the satellite manufacturer which allows full rotation, but which is different than the originally prescribed mode. An investigation of the solar array anomalies, none of which have impacted commercial operation of the satellite, is continuing. Unless the root cause of these anomalies is finally determined, there can be no assurance future anomalies will not cause losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite.

Satellite Insurance

As a result of the failure of EchoStar IV solar arrays to fully deploy and the failure of 38 transponders to date, a maximum of 6 of the 44 transponders (including spares) on EchoStar IV are available for use at this time. In addition to transponder and solar array failures, EchoStar IV experienced anomalies affecting its thermal systems and propulsion system. There can be no assurance that further material degradation, or total loss of use, of EchoStar IV will not occur in the immediate future. EchoStar IV is currently located at the 157 degree orbital location.

In September 1998, we filed a $219.3 million insurance claim for a total loss under the launch insurance policies covering our EchoStar IV.IV satellite. The satellite insurance consists of separate substantially identical policies with different carriers for varying amounts that, in combination, create a total insured amount of $219.3 million. The insurance carriers include La Reunion Spatiale; AXA Reinsurance Company (n/k/a AXA Corporate Solutions Reinsurance Company), United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., United States Aircraft Insurance Group; Assurances Generales De France I.A.R.T. (AGF); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London; Great Lakes Reinsurance (U.K.) PLC; British Aviation Insurance Group; If Skaadeforsikring (previously Storebrand); Hannover Re (a/k/a International Hannover); The Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd.; Marham Space Consortium (a/k/a Marham Consortium Management); Ace Global Markets (a/k/a Ace London); M.C. Watkins Syndicate; Goshawk Syndicate Management Ltd.; D.E. Hope Syndicate 10009 (Formerly Busbridge); Amlin Aviation; K.J. Coles & Others; H.R. Dumas & Others; Hiscox Syndicates, Ltd.; Cox Syndicate; Hayward Syndicate; D.J. Marshall & Others; TF Hart; Kiln; Assitalia Le Assicurazioni D’Italia S.P.A. Roma; La Fondiaria Assicurazione S.P.A., Firenze; Vittoria Assicurazioni S.P.A., Milano; Ras — Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta S.P.A., Milano; Societa Cattolica Di Assicurazioni, Verano; Siat Assicurazione E Riassicurazione S.P.A, Genova; E. Patrick; ZC Specialty Insurance; Lloyds of London Syndicates 588

10

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

NJM, 1209 Meb AND 861 Meb; Generali France Assurances; Assurance France Aviation; and Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd.

The insurance carriers offered us a total of approximately $88.0 million, or 40.0%40% of the total policy amount, in settlement of the EchoStar IV insurance claim. The insurers assert, among other things, that EchoStar IV was not a total loss, as that term is defined in the policy, and that we did not abide by the exact terms of the insurance policies. We strongly disagree and filed arbitration claims against the insurers for breach of contract, failure to pay a valid insurance claim and bad faith denial of a valid claim, among other things. Due to individual forum selection clauses in certain of the policies, we are pursuing our arbitration claims against Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd. in London, England, and our arbitration claims against all of the other insurance carriers in New York, New York. The New York arbitration commenced on April 28, 2003, and hearings were held for two weeks.the Arbitration Panel has now conducted approximately thirty-five days of hearings. The New

9

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – Continued
(Unaudited)

York arbitration will resume on September 16, 2003.is expected to involve additional proceedings before any final arbitration award is made by the Panel. The parties to the London arbitration have agreed to stay that proceeding pending a ruling in the New York arbitration. There can be no assurance thatas to when an arbitration award may be made and what amount, if any, we will receive the amount claimed in either the New York or the London arbitrations or, if we do, that we will retain title to EchoStar IV with its reduced capacity.

At the time we filed our claim in 1998, we recognized an initial impairment loss of $106.0 million to write-down the carrying value of the satellite and related costs, and simultaneously recorded an insurance claim receivable for the same amount. We will have to reduce the amount of this receivable if a final settlement is reached for less than this amount. In addition, during 1999, we recorded an impairment loss of approximately $16.0 million as a charge to earnings to further write-down the carrying value of the satellite.

As a result of the thermal and propulsion system anomalies, we reduced the estimated remaining useful life of EchoStar IV to approximately four years during January 2000. We will continue to evaluate the performance of EchoStar IV and may modify our loss assessment as new events or circumstances develop.

The indentures related to certain of EchoStar DBS Corporation’s (“EDBS”)EDBS’s senior notes contain restrictive covenants that require us to maintain satellite insurance with respect to at least halfthree of the ten satellites itEDBS owns or leases. EightWe currently do not carry traditional insurance for any of our nine in-orbit satellites are currently owned by a direct subsidiary of EDBS. Insurance coverage is therefore required for at least four of EDBS’ eight satellites. The launch and/or in-orbit insurance policies for EchoStar I through EchoStar VIII have expired. We have been unable to obtain insurance on any of these satellites on terms acceptable to us. As a result, we are currently self-insuring these satellites. To satisfy insurance covenants related to EDBS’ senior notes, we have reclassifiedclassify an amount equal to the depreciated cost of fourthree of our satellites fromas “Cash reserved for satellite insurance” on our balance sheet. As of March 31, 2004, this amount totaled approximately $113.1 million. We will continue to reserve cash and cash equivalents to cash reserved for satellite insurance on our balance sheet. As of June 30, 2003, cash reserved for satellite insurance totaled approximately $135.2 million. The reclassifications will continuesheet until such time, if ever, as we can again insure our satellites on acceptable terms and for acceptable amounts, or until the covenants requiring thethat insurance are no longer applicable.

6. Goodwill and Intangible Assets

6.

Goodwill and Intangible Assets

As of March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2002 and June 30, 2003, we had approximately $53.8$52.7 million of gross identifiable intangibles, with related accumulated amortization of approximately $33.6$45.2 million and $38.7$42.9 million, as of the end of each period, respectively. These identifiable intangibles primarily include acquired contracts and technology-based intangibles. Amortization of these intangible assets with an average finite useful life of approximately five years was about $2.6 million and $5.1$2.3 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, respectively. We estimate that suchMarch 31, 2004. For all of 2004, the aggregate amortization expense will aggregate approximately $10.0 million annually forrelated to the remaining useful lifenet book value of these identifiable intangible assets will be $8.1 million. By March 31, 2005, the majority of approximately 1.5 years.these identifiable intangible assets will be fully amortized. In addition, our business unit DISH Networkwe had approximately $3.4 million of goodwill as of March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003 which arose from a 2002 acquisition.

In December 2003, we made an investment in South.com LLC (“South.com”), a company we consolidate in our condensed consolidated financial statements. South.com was formed to, among other things, bid on and June 30,hold FCC licenses. During December 2003, South.com paid a $7.1 million deposit to participate in the January 2004 FCC license auction. During January 2004, South.com paid an additional deposit to the FCC of $20.6 million as the high-bidder on several licenses. These deposits are included in “Other current assets” in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003.

11

7.

Long-Term Debt

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

7. Long-Term Debt

Effective February 1, 2003,2, 2004, EDBS redeemed allthe remaining $1.423 billion principal amount of its outstanding9 1/4%3/8% Senior Notes due 2006. In accordance with the terms of the indenture governing the notes, the $375.0 million principal amount of the notes was repurchased2009 at 104.625%104.688%, for a total of approximately $392.3 million.$1.490 billion. The premium paid of approximately $17.3$66.7 million, along with unamortized debt issuance costs of approximately $3.3$10.8 million, were recorded as charges to earnings as ofin February 1, 2003.2004.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

8.

Commitments and Contingencies

CommitmentsContingencies

SES Americom

During March 2003, one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, EchoStar Satellite Corporation (“ESC”), entered into a satellite service agreement with SES Americom for all of the capacity on a Fixed Satellite Service (“FSS”) satellite to be located at the 105 degree west orbital location. This satellite is scheduled to be launched during the second half of 2004. ESC also agreed to lease all of the capacity on an existing in-orbit FSS satellite at the 105 degree orbital location beginning August 1, 2003 and continuing in most circumstances until the new satellite is launched.

ESC intends to use the capacity on the satellites to offer a combination of satellite TV programming including local network channels in additional markets and expanded high definition programming, together with satellite-delivered, high-speed internet services. In connection with the SES agreement, ESC paid $50.0 million to SES Americom to partially fund construction of the new satellite. The ten-year satellite service agreement is renewable by ESC on a year to year basis following the initial term, and provides ESC with certain rights to replacement satellites at the 105 degree west orbital location. We are required to make monthly payments to SES Americom for both the existing in-orbit FSS satellite and also for the new satellite for the ten-year period following its launch.

EchoStar X

During July 2003, we entered into a contract for the construction of EchoStar X, a high-powered DBS satellite. Construction is expected to be completed during 2005. With spot-beam capacity, EchoStar X will provide back up protection for our existing local channel offerings, and could allow DISH Network to offer other value added services.

Satellite-Related Obligations

As a result of our recent agreements with SES Americom, and for the construction of EchoStar X, our obligations for payments related to satellites have increased substantially. While in certain circumstances the dates on which we are obligated to make these payments could be delayed, the aggregate amount due under all of our existing satellite-related contracts including satellite construction and launch, satellite leases, in-orbit payments to satellite manufacturers and tracking, telemetry and control payments is expected to be approximately $48.0 million for the remainder of 2003, $79.0 million during 2004, $87.0 million during 2005, $72.0 million during 2006, $57.0 million during 2007 and similar amounts in subsequent years. These amounts will increase further when we procure and commence payments for the launch of EchoStar X, and would further increase to the extent we procure insurance for our satellites or contract for the construction, launch or lease of additional satellites.

12

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

Legal Proceedings

WIC Premium Television Ltd.

During July 1998, a lawsuit was filed by WIC Premium Television Ltd. (“WIC”), an Alberta corporation, in the Federal Court of Canada Trial Division, against General Instrument Corporation, HBO, Warner Communications, Inc., John Doe, Showtime, United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc., EchoStar, and certain EchoStar subsidiaries.

During September 1998, WIC filed another lawsuit in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Edmonton against certain defendants, including us. WIC is a company authorized to broadcast certain copyrighted work, such as movies and concerts, to residents of Canada. WIC alleges that the defendants engaged in, promoted, and/or allowed satellite dish equipment from the United States to be sold in Canada and to Canadian residents and that some of the defendants allowed and profited from Canadian residents purchasing and viewing subscription television programming that is only authorized for viewing in the United States. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, interim and permanent injunctions prohibiting the defendants from importing satellite receivers into Canada and from activating satellite receivers located in Canada to receive programming, together with damages in excess of $175.0 million.

The Court in the Alberta action denied our motion to dismiss, and our appeal of that decision. The Federal action has been dismissed by the federal court. The Alberta action is pending. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the suit. During 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the receipt in Canada of programming from United States pay television providers is prohibited. While we were not a party to that case, the ruling could adversely affect our defense. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Distant Network Litigation

Until July 1998, we obtained feeds of distant broadcast network channels (ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX) for distribution to our customers through PrimeTime 24, an independent third party programming provider.24. In December 1998, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a nationwide permanent injunction requiring that providerPrimeTime 24 to shut off distant network channels to many of its customers, and henceforth to sell those channels to consumers in accordance with the injunction.

10

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – Continued
(Unaudited)

In October 1998, we filed a declaratory judgment action against ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. We asked the Court to find that our method of providing distant network programming did not violate the Satellite Home Viewer Act and hence did not infringe the networks’ copyrights. In November 1998, the networks and their affiliate association groups filed a complaint against us in Miami Federal Court alleging, among other things, copyright infringement. The Court combined the case that we filed in Colorado with the case in Miami and transferred it to the Miami Federal Court. While the networks did not claim monetary damages and none were awarded, they are seeking attorney fees in excess of $6.0 million. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the plaintiff’s fee petition or to determine the extent of any potential liability.

In February 1999, the networks filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Contempt Finding against DirecTV, Inc. in Miami related to the delivery of distant network channels to DirecTV customers by satellite. DirecTV settled that lawsuit with the networks. Under the terms of the settlement between DirecTV and the networks, some DirecTV customers were scheduled to lose access to their satellite-provided distant network channels by July 31, 1999, while other DirecTV customers were to be disconnected by December 31, 1999. Subsequently, substantially all providers of satellite-delivered network programming other than us agreed to this cut-off schedule, although we do not know if they adhered to this schedule.

In April 2002, we reached a private settlement with ABC, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in the litigation and jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal. In November 2002, we reached a private settlement with NBC, another of the plaintiffs in

13

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

the litigation and jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal. We have also reached private settlements with a small number of independent stations and station groups. We were unable to reach a settlement with six of the original eight plaintiffs — CBS, Fox, or the associations affiliated with each of the four networks.

The trial commenced on April 11, 2003 and concluded on April 25, 2003. On June 10, 2003, the Court issued its final judgment. The District Court found that with one exception our current distant network qualification procedures comply with the law. We have revised our procedures to comply with the District Court’s Order. Although the plaintiffs asked the District Court to enter an injunction precluding us from selling any local or distant network programming, the District Court refused.

However, the District Court’s injunction does require us to use a computer model to requalify, as of June 2003, all of our subscribers who receive ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox programming by satellite from a market other than the city in which the subscriber lives. The Court also invalidated all waivers historically provided by network stations. These waivers, which have been provided by stations for the past several years through a third party automated system, allow subscribers who believe the computer model improperly disqualified them for distant network channels, to none-the-less receive those channels by satellite. Further, even though the SHVIA provides that certain subscribers who received distant network channels prior to October 1999 can continue to receive those channels through December 2004, the District Court terminated the right of our grandfathered subscribers to continue to receive distant network channels.

While we are pleased the District Court did not provide the relief sought by the plaintiffs, we believe the District Court made a number of errors and have filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s decision. We have also asked the Court of Appeals to stay, until our appeal is decided, the current September 22, 2003 date by which EchoStar has been ordered to terminate distant network channels to all subscribers impacted by the District Court’s decision. The Court of Appeals has indicated it will rule on our request for a stay on or before August 15, 2003. It is not possible to predict how the Court of Appeals will rule on our stay, or how or when the Court of Appeals will rule on the merits of our appeal.

In the event the Court of Appeals does not stay the lower court’s ruling, and if we do not reach private settlement agreements with additional stations, we will attempt to assist subscribers in arranging alternative means to receive network channels, including migration to local channels by satellite where available, and free off air antenna offers in other markets. However, we can not predict with any degree of certainty how many subscribers will cancel their primary DISH Network programming as a result of termination of their distant network channels. Termination of distant network programming to subscribers would result in a reduction in ARPU of no more than $0.30 per subscriber per month. While there can be no assurance, we do not expect that those terminations would result in any more than a one percentage point increase in our otherwise anticipated churn over the course of the next 12 months.

Gemstar

During October 2000, Starsight Telecast, Inc., a subsidiary of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (“Gemstar”), filed a suit for patent infringement against us and certain of our subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division. The suit alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 4,706,121 (“the `121 Patent”) which relates to certain electronic program guide functions. We examined this patent and believe that it is not infringed by any of our products or services. This conclusion is supported by findings of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) which are discussed below. The North Carolina case is stayed pending the appeal of the ITC action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In December 2000, we filed suit against Gemstar-TV Guide (and certain of its subsidiaries) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging violations by Gemstar of various federal and state anti-trust laws and laws governing unfair competition. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and monetary damages. Gemstar filed counterclaims alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,923,362 and 5,684,525 that relate to certain electronic program guide functions. We examined these patents and believe they are not infringed by any of our products or services. In

14

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

August 2001, the Federal Multi-District Litigation panel combined this suit, for pre-trial purposes, with other lawsuits asserting antitrust claims against Gemstar, which had previously been filed by other parties. In January 2002, Gemstar dropped the counterclaims of patent infringement. During March 2002, the Court denied Gemstar’s motion to dismiss our antitrust claims. In January 2003, the Court denied a more recently filed Gemstar motion for summary judgment based generally on lack of standing. In its answer, Gemstar asserted new patent infringement counterclaims regarding United States Patent Nos. 4,908,713 (“the ‘713 patent”) and 5,915,068 (“the ‘068 patent”, which is expired). These patents relate to on-screen programming of VCRs. We have examined these patents and believe that they are not infringed by any of our products or services. The Court recently granted our motion to dismiss the ‘713 patent for lack of standing.

In February 2001, Gemstar filed patent infringement actions against us in the District Court in Atlanta, Georgia and with the ITC. These suits allege infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,252,066, 5,479,268 and 5,809,204, all of which relate to certain electronic program guide functions. In addition, the ITC action alleged infringement of the `121 Patent which was also asserted in the North Carolina case previously discussed. In the Georgia district court case, Gemstar seeks damages and an injunction. The Georgia case was stayed pending resolution of the ITC action and remains stayed at this time. In December 2001, the ITC held a 15-day hearing before an administrative law judge. Prior to the hearing, Gemstar dropped its infringement allegations regarding United States Patent No. 5,252,066 with respect to which we had asserted substantial allegations of inequitable conduct. The hearing addressed, among other things, Gemstar’s allegations of patent infringement and respondents’ (SCI, Scientific Atlanta, Pioneer and us) allegations of patent misuse. During June 2002, the judge issued a Final Initial Determination finding that none of the patents asserted by Gemstar had been infringed. In addition, the judge found that Gemstar was guilty of patent misuse with respect to the `121 Patent and that the `121 Patent was unenforceable because it failed to name an inventor. The parties then filed petitions for the full ITC to review the judge’s Final Initial Determination. During August 2002, the full ITC adopted the judge’s findings regarding non-infringement and the unenforceability of the `121 Patent. The ITC did not adopt, but did not overturn, the judge’s findings of patent misuse. Gemstar is appealing the decision of the ITC to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the Federal Circuit were to overturn the judge’s decision, such an adverse decision in this case could temporarily halt the import of our receivers and could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly electronic programming guides and related features we currently offer to consumers. Based upon our review of these patents, and based upon the ITC’s decision, we continue to believe that these patents are not infringed by any of our products or services. We intend to continue to vigorously contest the ITC, North Carolina and Georgia suits and will, among other things, continue to challenge both the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents.

During 2000, Superguide Corp. (“Superguide”) also filed suit against us, DirecTV and others in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,038,211, 5,293,357 and 4,751,578 which relate to certain electronic program guide functions, including the use of electronic program guides to control VCRs. Superguide sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages in an unspecified amount. It is our understanding that these patents may be licensed by Superguide to Gemstar. Gemstar was added as a party to this case and asserted these patents against us. We examined these patents and believe that they are not infringed by any of our products or services. A Markman ruling interpreting the patent claims was issued by the Court and in response to that ruling, we filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement for each of the asserted patents. Gemstar filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement with respect to one of the patents. During July 2002, the Court issued a Memorandum of Opinion on the summary judgment motions. In its Opinion, the Court ruled that none of our products infringe the 5,038,211 and 5,293,357 patents. With respect to the 4,751,578 patent, the Court ruled that none of our current products infringed that patent and asked for additional information before it could rule on certain low-volume products that are no longer in production. During July 2002, the Court summarily ruled that the aforementioned low-volume products did not infringe any of the asserted patents. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case and awarded us our court costs. Superguide and Gemstar are appealing this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We will continue to vigorously defend this case. In the event the Federal Circuit ultimately determines that we infringe on any of the aforementioned patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could

15

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

require us to materially modify certain user-friendly electronic programming guide and related features that we currently offer to consumers. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the suits.

California Actions

A purported class action was filed against us in the California State Superior Court for Alameda County during May 2001 by Andrew A. Werby. The complaint, relating to late fees, alleges unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., false and misleading advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. A settlement was subsequently reached with plaintiff’s counsel. The Court issued its preliminary approval of the settlement during October 2002 and issued its final approval of the settlement on March 7, 2003. As a result, this matter was concluded with no material impact on our business.

A purported class action relating to the use of terms such as “crystal clear digital video,” “CD-quality audio,” and “on-screen program guide,” and with respect to the number of channels available in various programming packages was also filed against us in the California State Superior Court for Los Angeles County in 1999 by David Pritikin and by Consumer Advocates, a nonprofit unincorporated association. The complaint alleges breach of express warranty and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., and the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 & 17200. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and our motion for summary judgment was held during June 2002. At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. However, before issuing a final ruling on class certification, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment with respect to all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Subsequently, we filed a motion for attorney’s fees which was denied by the Court. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s granting of our motion for summary judgment and we cross-appealed the Court’s ruling on our motion for attorney’s fees. It is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable outcome of the appeal or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

State Investigation

During April 2002, two state attorneys general commenced a civil investigation concerning certain of our business practices. Over the course of the next six months, 11 additional states ultimately joined the investigation. The states alleged failure to comply with consumer protection laws based on our call response times and policies, advertising and customer agreement disclosures, policies for handling consumer complaints, issuing rebates and refunds and charging cancellation fees to consumers, and other matters. We cooperated fully in the investigation. During May 2003, we entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the states which ended their investigation. The states have released all claims related to the matters investigated. We made a settlement payment of approximately $5.0 million during the second quarter of 2003 pursuant to the Assurance.

Retailer Class Actions

We have been sued by retailers in three separate purported class actions. During October 2000, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Arapahoe County District Court in the State of Colorado and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, respectively, by Air Communication & Satellite, Inc. and John DeJong, et al. on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated. The plaintiffs are attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of our satellite hardware retailers. The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between us and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other compensation. We are vigorously defending against the suits and have asserted a variety of counterclaims. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado stayed the Federal Court action to allow the parties to pursue a comprehensive adjudication of their dispute in the Arapahoe County State Court. John DeJong, d/b/a Nexwave, and Joseph Kelley, d/b/a Keltronics, subsequently intervened in the Arapahoe County Court action as plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. We have filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for additional time to conduct

16

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

discovery to enable them to respond to our motion. The Court has not ruled on either of the two motions. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Satellite Dealers Supply, Inc. (“SDS”) filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas during September 2000, on behalf of itself and a class of persons similarly situated. The plaintiff was attempting to certify a nationwide class on behalf of sellers, installers, and servicers of satellite equipment who contract with us and who allege that we: (1) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class to professional installers in violation of contractual terms; (2) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny payments to class members; and (3) misrepresented, to class members, the ownership of certain equipment related to the provision of our satellite television service. During September 2001, the Court granted our motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing the case. The Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The trial court denied our motions for sanctions against SDS. Both parties have now perfected appeals before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties’ written briefs have been filed and oral argument was heard by the Court on August 4, 2003. It is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable outcome of the appeals or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

StarBand Shareholder Lawsuit

On August 20, 2002, a limited group of shareholders in StarBand filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against EchoStar and EchoBand Corporation, together with four EchoStar executives who sat on the Board of Directors for StarBand, for alleged breach of the fiduciary duties of due care, good faith and loyalty, and also against EchoStar and EchoBand Corporation for aiding and abetting such alleged breaches. Two of the individual defendants, Charles W. Ergen and David K. Moskowitz, are members of our Board of Directors. The action stems from the defendants’ involvement as directors, and EchoBand’s position as a shareholder, in StarBand, a broadband Internet satellite venture in which we invested. On July 28, 2003 the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on all counts. We do not know if Plaintiffs will appeal the Court’s decision.

Shareholder Derivative Action

During October 2002, a purported shareholder filed a derivative action against members of our Board of Directors in the United States District Court of Clark County, Nevada and naming us as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste and other unlawful acts relating to our agreement to (1) pay Hughes Electronics Corporation a $600.0 million termination fee in certain circumstances and (2) acquire Hughes’ shareholder interest in PanAmSat. The agreements to pay the termination fee and acquire PanAmSat were required in the event that the merger with DirecTV was not completed by January 21, 2003. During July 2003, the individual Board of Director defendants were dismissed from the suit. The plaintiff has filed a motion for attorney’s fees. It is not possible to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the outstanding motions or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

17

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

9. Depreciation and Amortization Expense

Depreciation and amortization expense consists of the following: