UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

OR

Commission File Number 333-31929

EchoStar DBS Corporation

(303) 723-1000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Not Applicable
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [   ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [   ] No [X]

As of July 30, 2004, the Registrant’s outstanding common stock consisted of 1,015 shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par value.

The Registrant meets the conditions set forth in General Instruction (H)(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-Q and is therefore filing this Form 10-Q with the reduced disclosure format.

DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

*

This item has been omitted pursuant to the reduced disclosure format as set forth in General Instruction (H) (2) of Form 10-Q.

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 any future transactions or events described herein 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. The 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 will continue to be pirated in the future; pirating could cause us to lose subscribers and revenue, and 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;

•

new provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act may force us to stop offering local channels in certain markets or incur additional costs to continue offering local channels in certain markets;

•

our satellite launches may be delayed or fail, or our satellites may fail in orbit prior to the end of their scheduled lives, which could result in extended interruptions of some of the channels we offer;

•

we currently do not have traditional commercial insurance covering losses incurred from the failure of satellite launches and/or in-orbit satellites and we may be unable to settle outstanding claims with insurers;

•

service interruptions arising from technical anomalies on satellites or on-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, Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) authorizations or export 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;

•

acquisitions, business combinations, strategic partnerships, divestitures and other significant transactions may involve additional uncertainties;

•

terrorist attacks, the possibility of war or other hostilities, and changes in political and economic 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 (“SEC”).

i

DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS – Continued

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.

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,” “us,” and “EDBS” refer to EchoStar DBS Corporation and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires. “EchoStar” and “ECC” refer to Echostar Communications Corporation and its subsidiaries.

ii 

ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

1

ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION

1. Organization and Business Activities

EchoStar DBS Corporation (“EDBS”, the “Company”, “we”, “us” and/or “our”) is a holding company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar Communications Corporation (“EchoStar” or “ECC”), a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq National Market. EDBS was formed under Colorado law in January 1996. EchoStar has placed ownership of its nine satellites and related FCC licenses into our subsidiaries.

Principal Business

Unless otherwise stated herein, or the context otherwise requires, references herein to EchoStar shall include ECC, EDBS and all direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries thereof. EchoStar’s subsidiaries operate two interrelated business units:

•

The DISH Network – which provides a direct broadcast satellite subscription television service in the United States which we refer to as “DBS”; and

•

EchoStar Technologies Corporation (“ETC”) – which designs and develops DBS set-top boxes, antennae and other digital equipment for the DISH Network. We refer to this equipment collectively as “EchoStar receiver systems.” ETC also designs, develops and distributes similar equipment for international satellite service providers.

Since 1994, we have deployed substantial resources to develop the “EchoStar DBS System.” The EchoStar DBS System consists of our FCC-allocated DBS spectrum, our owned and leased satellites, EchoStar receiver systems, digital broadcast operations centers, customer service facilities, and certain other assets utilized in our operations. Our principal business strategy is to continue developing our subscription television service in the United States to provide consumers with a fully competitive alternative to cable television service.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X for interim financial information. Accordingly, these statements do not include all of the information and notes required for complete financial statements. In our opinion, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the six months ended June 30, 2004 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2004. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (“2003 10-K”). The results of operations for the three and six months ended June 2004 include a charge of approximately $13.0 million to establish a reserve for estimated “Subscriber-related expenses” relating to prior periods. This reserve may increase or decrease in future periods.

Effective January 1, 2004, we combined “Subscription television service” revenue and “Other subscriber-related revenue” into “Subscriber-related revenue.” Additionally, “Equipment sales” and “Cost of sales – equipment” now include non-DISH Network receivers and other accessories sold by our EchoStar International Corporation subsidiary to international customers which were previously included in “Other” revenue and “Cost of sales – other,” respectively. All prior period amounts were reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

4

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

Principles of Consolidation

We consolidate all majority owned subsidiaries and investments in entities in which we have controlling influence. Non-majority owned investments are accounted for using the equity method when we have the ability to significantly influence the operating decisions of the investee. When we do not have the ability to significantly influence the operating decisions of an investee, the cost method is used. For entities that are considered variable interest entities we apply the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. (FIN) 46-R, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, and Interpretation of ARB No. 51” (“FIN 46-R”). All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses for each reporting period. Estimates are used in accounting for, among other things, allowances for uncollectible accounts, inventory allowances, self insurance obligations, deferred tax asset valuation allowances, loss contingencies, fair values of financial instruments, asset impairments, useful lives of property and equipment, royalty obligations and smart card replacement obligations. 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” 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.

Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation

EchoStar has 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 its stock-based compensation plans. Under APB 25, EchoStar generally does not recognize compensation expense on the grant of options under its stock incentive plans because typically the option terms are fixed and the exercise price equals or exceeds the market price of the underlying stock on the date of grant. EchoStar applies the “disclosure only” provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123, “Accounting and Disclosure of Stock-Based Compensation,” (“SFAS 123”).

Pro forma information regarding net income is required by SFAS 123 and has been determined as if EchoStar had accounted for its stock-based compensation plans using the fair market value method prescribed by 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

5

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

is reversed to the extent unvested options are forfeited upon termination of employment. The following table illustrates the effect on our net income (loss) if EchoStar had accounted for its stock-based compensation plans using the fair value method:

For purposes of this pro forma presentation, the fair value of each option was estimated at the date of the grant using a Black-Scholes option pricing 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. Consequently, our estimate of fair value may differ from other valuation models. Further, the Black-Scholes model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions and because changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimate, the existing model does not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of stock-based compensation awards.

Non-cash, stock-based compensation

During 1999, EchoStar adopted a plan under its 1995 Stock Incentive Plan, which 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, 2004 and 2003. There is no remaining deferred compensation to be recognized under 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 condensed consolidated statements of operations. The following table shows 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:

Options to purchase 7.2 million shares were outstanding pursuant to a long-term incentive plan under EchoStar’s 1995 Stock Incentive plan as of June 30, 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. The weighted-average exercise price of these options is $9.11. 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 six months ended June 30, 2004 related to these long-term options. We will record the related compensation upon the achievement of the performance goals, if ever. This compensation, if recorded, could result in material non-cash, stock-based compensation expense in our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

6

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

3. Marketable Investment Securities

We currently classify all marketable investment securities as available-for-sale. We adjust the carrying value of our available-for-sale securities to fair market value and report the related temporary unrealized gains and losses as a component of “Accumulated other comprehensive income”, net of related deferred income tax. Declines in the fair market value of a marketable investment security which are estimated to be “other than temporary” are recognized in the condensed consolidated statements of operations, thereby establishing a new cost basis for the 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 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 these 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, 2004, we had unrealized losses of approximately $3.1 million as a part of “Accumulated other comprehensive income” within “Total stockholder’s deficit”. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, we did not record any charges to earnings for other than temporary declines in the fair market value of our marketable investment securities. 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 securities 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, and may continue in the future to make, strategic equity investments in securities that are not publicly traded, including equity interests we received in exchange for non-cash consideration (Note 6). Our ability to realize value from our strategic investments in companies that are not publicly 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 evaluate our non-marketable investment securities on a quarterly basis to determine whether the carrying value of each investment is impaired. 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. These factors may include, but are not limited to, cash flow concerns, material litigation, violations of debt covenants and changes in business strategy. During the six months ended June 30, 2004, we did not record any impairment charges with respect to these instruments.

4. Inventories

Inventories consist of the following:

5. Satellites

We review our long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable in accordance with the provision of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets” (“SFAS 144”), We consider the relevant cash flows, estimated operating results and other information in evaluating the performance of our satellites in accordance with SFAS 144 and have determined the carrying value of our satellites are fully recoverable. We will continue to evaluate the performance of our satellites as new events or changes in circumstances become known.

EchoStar III

During January 2004, a Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier (“TWTA”) pair on our EchoStar III satellite failed, resulting in a loss of service on one of our licensed transponders. An additional TWTA pair failed in March 2004.

7

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

Including the seven TWTA pairs that malfunctioned in prior years, these anomalies have resulted in the failure of a total of 18 TWTAs 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 TWTAs to provide redundancy. EchoStar III can now operate a maximum of 26 transponders but due to redundancy switching limitations and specific channel authorizations, currently it can only operate on 18 of the 19 FCC authorized frequencies we own or lease at the 61.5 degree west orbital location. While we don’t expect a large number of TWTAs to fail in any year, it is likely that additional TWTA failures will occur from time to time in the future, and that those failures will further impact commercial operation of the satellite. We will continue to evaluate the performance of EchoStar III as new events or changes in circumstances become known.

EchoStar V

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 4 solar array strings. During March 2004, EchoStar V lost an additional solar array string, reducing solar array power to approximately 95% of its original capacity. While originally designed to operate a maximum of 32 transponders at any given time, the solar array anomalies may prevent the use of all 32 transponders for the full 12-year design life of the satellite. In addition, momentum wheel anomalies previously experienced resulted in more rapid use of fuel and a corresponding minor reduction of spacecraft 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 VI

Prior to 2004, EchoStar VI had lost a total of 3 solar array strings. In April 2004 and again in July 2004, EchoStar VI experienced anomalies resulting in the loss of two additional solar array strings, bringing the total number of string losses to five. The satellite has a total of approximately 112 solar array strings and approximately 106 are required to assure full power availability for the estimated 12-year design life of the satellite. An investigation of the solar array anomalies, none of which have impacted commercial operation of the satellite, is continuing. Until the root cause of these anomalies is finally determined, there can be no assurance future anomalies will not cause further losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite.

EchoStar VII

During March 2004, our EchoStar VII satellite lost a solar array circuit. EchoStar VII was designed with 24 solar array circuits and needs 23 for the spacecraft to be fully operational at end of life. 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 causes 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 June 2004, EchoStar VIII experienced an anomaly which affected operation of one of the primary gyroscopes on the satellite. A spare gyroscope has been switched in and is performing nominally. EchoStar VIII was originally configured with three primary, and one spare gyroscope. Further, an anomaly previously experienced has resulted in certain gyroscopes being utilized for aggregate periods of time substantially in excess of their originally qualified limits in order to maintain nominal spacecraft operations and pointing. An investigation is underway to determine the root cause of the anomaly and to develop procedures for continued spacecraft operation in the event of future gyroscope anomalies. Until the root cause of the anomaly is determined, there can be no assurance future anomalies will not cause

8

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

losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite. We depend on EchoStar VIII to provide local channels to over 40 markets. In the event that EchoStar VIII experienced a total or substantial failure, we could transfer many, but not all of those channels to other in-orbit satellites.

Satellite Insurance

In September 1998, EchoStar filed a $219.3 million insurance claim for a total loss under the launch insurance policies covering our EchoStar 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 NJM, 1209 Meb AND 861 Meb; Generali France Assurances; Assurance France Aviation; and Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd.

The insurance carriers offered EchoStar a total of approximately $88.0 million, or 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 EchoStar did not abide by the exact terms of the insurance policies. EchoStar strongly disagrees 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 forum selection clauses in certain of the policies, EchoStar is pursuing its arbitration claims against Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd. in London, England, and its arbitration claims against all of the other insurance carriers in New York, New York. The New York arbitration commenced on April 28, 2003, and the Arbitration Panel has conducted approximately thirty-five days of hearings. The insurers have requested additional proceedings in the New York arbitration 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 as to when an arbitration award may be made and what amount, if any, EchoStar will receive in either the New York or the London arbitrations or, if EchoStar does, that EchoStar will retain title to EchoStar IV with its reduced capacity.

At the time EchoStar filed its 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. As of December 31, 2003, EchoStar IV was fully depreciated. While there can be no assurance that EchoStar will receive the amount claimed in either the New York or the London arbitrations, EchoStar continues to believe the insurance claim amount is fully recoverable and expects to receive a favorable decision prior to December 31, 2004.

The indentures related to certain of our senior notes contain restrictive covenants that require us to maintain satellite insurance with respect to at least three of the ten satellites we own or lease. We currently do not carry traditional insurance for any of our satellites. To satisfy insurance covenants related to our senior notes, we classify an amount equal to the depreciated cost of three of our satellites as “Cash reserved for satellite insurance” on our balance sheet. As of June 30, 2004, this amount totaled approximately $107.1 million. We will continue to reserve cash for satellite insurance on our balance sheet until such time, if ever, as we again insure our satellites on acceptable terms and for acceptable amounts, or until the covenants requiring that insurance are no longer applicable. The amount reserved is

9

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

not adequate to fund the construction, launch and insurance of a replacement satellite, and it typically takes several years to design, construct and launch a satellite.

10

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

6. Other Noncurrent Assets

Gemstar-TV Guide International Transaction

During March 2004, Echostar entered into an agreement with Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (“Gemstar”) for use of certain Gemstar intellectual property and technology, use of the TV Guide brand on our interactive program guides, and for distribution arrangements with Gemstar to provide for the launch and carriage of the TV Guide Channel as well as the extension of an existing distribution agreement for carriage of the TVG Network, and acquired Gemstar’s Superstar/Netlink Group LLC (“SNG”), UVTV distribution, and SpaceCom businesses and related assets, for an aggregate cash payment of $238.0 million, plus transaction costs. Echostar further agreed to resolve all of our outstanding litigation with Gemstar. These transactions, which were substantially completed on April 4, 2004, were entered into contemporaneously and accounted for as a purchase business combination in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 141, “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141”).

Based on an independent third-party valuation, the purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable tangible and intangible assets and liabilities as follows (in thousands):

The total $260.5 million of acquired intangible assets resulting from the Gemstar transactions is comprised of contract-based intangibles totaling approximately $187.2 million with estimated weighted-average useful lives of twelve years, and customer relationships totaling approximately $73.3 million with estimated weighted-average useful lives of five years.

The business combination did not have a material impact on our results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 and would not have materially impacted our results of operations for these periods had the business combination occurred on January 1, 2004. Further, the business combination would not have had a material impact on our results of operations for the comparable periods in 2003 had the business combination occurred on January 1, 2003.

Goodwill and Intangible Assets

As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, we had approximately $261.6 million and $1.1 million of gross identifiable intangibles, respectively, with related accumulated amortization of approximately $7.9 million and $0.3 million, respectively. These identifiable intangibles consist of the following:

11

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

Amortization of these intangible assets with an average finite useful life primarily ranging from approximately five to twelve years was $7.5 million and $7.6 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, respectively. For all of 2004, the aggregate amortization expense related to these identifiable intangible assets is estimated to be $25.8 million. The aggregate amortization expense is estimated to be approximately $32.4 million for 2005, $31.7 million for 2006, $29.1 million for 2007, and $27.1 million for 2008. In addition, we had approximately $3.4 million of goodwill as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003 which arose from a 2002 acquisition.

Other

During the six months ended June 30, 2004, we entered into an agreement in exchange for an equity interest in a certain entity. We accounted for the equity interest received in accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 00-8, “Accounting by a Grantee for an Equity Instrument to be Received in Conjunction with Providing Goods or Services” (“EITF 00-8”) and recorded approximately $52.7 million related to the fair value of the equity interest in “Other noncurrent assets” as of June 30, 2004. We account for this unconsolidated investment under the cost method of accounting. The value of the equity interest has also been recorded as a deferred credit and will be recognized as reductions to “Subscriber-related expenses” ratably as our actual costs are incurred under the related agreement in accordance with the guidance under EITF Issue No. 02-16, “Accounting by a Customer (including a Reseller) for Certain Consideration Received from a Vendor” (“EITF 02-16”). These deferred credits have been recorded as a component of “Long-term deferred revenue, distribution and carriage payments and other long-term liabilities” in our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

7. Long-Term Debt

9 3/8% Senior Note Redemption

Effective February 2, 2004, we redeemed the remaining $1.423 billion principal amount of our outstanding 9 3/8% Senior Notes due 2009 at 104.688%, for a total of approximately $1.490 billion. The premium paid of approximately $66.7 million, along with unamortized debt issuance costs of approximately $10.8 million, were recorded as charges to interest expense in February 2004.

9 1/8% Senior Note Repurchases

During the second quarter of 2004, we repurchased in open market transactions approximately $8.8 million principal amount of our 9 1/8% Senior Notes due 2009. The approximate $1.1 million difference between the market price paid and the principal amount of the notes, together with approximately $0.1 million of unamortized debt issuance costs related to the repurchased notes, were recorded as charges to interest expense during the second quarter of 2004 .

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

Distant Network Litigation

Until July 1998, EchoStar obtained feeds of distant broadcast network channels (ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX) for distribution to its customers through PrimeTime 24. In December 1998, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a nationwide permanent injunction requiring PrimeTime 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.

In October 1998, EchoStar filed a declaratory judgment action against ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. EchoStar asked the Court to find that its method of providing distant

12

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

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 EchoStar in Miami Federal Court alleging, among other things, copyright infringement. The Court combined the case that EchoStar filed in Colorado with the case in Miami and transferred it to the Miami Federal Court.

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 EchoStar agreed to this cut-off schedule, although EchoStar does not know if they adhered to this schedule.

In April 2002, EchoStar reached a private settlement with ABC, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in the litigation and jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal. In November 2002, EchoStar reached a private settlement with NBC, another of the plaintiffs in the litigation and jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal. On March 10, 2004, EchoStar reached a private settlement with CBS, another of the plaintiffs in the litigation and jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal. EchoStar has also reached private settlements with many independent stations and station groups. EchoStar was unable to reach a settlement with five of the original eight plaintiffs –Fox and the independent affiliate groups associated with each of the four networks.

A trial took place during April 2003 and the Court issued a final judgment in June 2003. The Court found that with one exception EchoStar’s current distant network qualification procedures comply with the law. EchoStar has revised its procedures to comply with the District Court’s Order. Although the plaintiffs asked the District Court to enter an injunction precluding EchoStar from selling any local or distant network programming, the District Court refused. While the plaintiffs did not claim monetary damages and none were awarded, the plaintiffs were awarded approximately $4.8 million in attorneys’ fees. This amount is substantially less than the amount the plaintiffs sought. EchoStar appealed the fee award and the Court recently vacated the fee award. The District Court also allowed EchoStar an opportunity to conduct discovery concerning the amount of plaintiffs’ requested fees. The parties have agreed to postpone discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding attorney fees until after the Court of Appeals rules on the pending appeal of the Court’s June 2003 final judgment. It is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable outcome of plaintiffs’ outstanding request for fees.

The District Court’s injunction requires EchoStar to use a computer model to re-qualify, as of June 2003, all of its 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 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act 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 EchoStar’s grandfathered subscribers to continue to receive distant network channels.

EchoStar believes the District Court made a number of errors and appealed the decision. Plaintiffs cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals granted EchoStar’s request to stay the injunction until EchoStar’s appeal is decided. Oral argument occurred on February 26, 2004. It is not possible to predict how or when the Court of Appeals will rule on the merits of EchoStar’s appeal.

In the event the Court of Appeals upholds the injunction, and if EchoStar does not reach private settlement agreements with additional stations, EchoStar 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, EchoStar cannot predict with any degree of certainty how many subscribers will

13

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

cancel their primary DISH Network programming as a result of termination of their distant network channels. EchoStar could be required to terminate distant network programming to all subscribers in the event the plaintiffs prevail on their cross-appeal and EchoStar is permanently enjoined from delivering all distant network channels. Termination of distant network programming to subscribers would result, among other things, in a reduction in average monthly revenue per subscriber and a temporary increase in subscriber churn.

Gemstar

During October 2000, Starsight Telecast, Inc., a subsidiary of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (“Gemstar”), filed a suit for patent infringement against EchoStar and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division.

In December 2000, EchoStar 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. Gemstar filed counterclaims alleging infringement of additional patents and asserted new patent infringement counterclaims.

In February 2001, Gemstar filed additional patent infringement actions against EchoStar in the District Court in Atlanta, Georgia and with the ITC. EchoStar settled all of the litigation with Gemstar during 2004 (Note 6).

Superguide

During 2000, Superguide Corp. (“Superguide”) filed suit against EchoStar, 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. EchoStar examined these patents and believes that they are not infringed by any of its products or services.

It is EchoStar’s 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 EchoStar. Gemstar’s claim against EchoStar was resolved as a part of the settlement discussed above.

A Markman ruling interpreting the patent claims was issued by the Court and in response to that ruling; EchoStar 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 ruled that none of EchoStar’s 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 EchoStar’s 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 low-volume products did not infringe any of the asserted patents. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case and awarded EchoStar its court costs and the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On February 12, 2004, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s findings and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. A petition for reconsideration of the Federal Circuit Decision was denied. Based upon the settlement with Gemstar, EchoStar now has an additional defense in this case based upon a license from Gemstar. EchoStar will continue to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that EchoStar infringes on any of the patents, EchoStar may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require EchoStar to materially modify certain user-friendly electronic programming guide and related features that EchoStar currently offers to consumers. It is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable outcome of the suit or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

14

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

Broadcast Innovation, LLC

In November of 2001, Broadcast Innovation, LLC filed a lawsuit against EchoStar, DirecTV, Thomson Consumer Electronics and others in Federal District Court in Denver, Colorado. The suit alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,076,094 (“the ‘094 patent”) and 4,992,066 (“the ‘066 patent”). The ‘094 patent relates to certain methods and devices for transmitting and receiving data along with specific formatting information for the data. The ‘066 patent relates to certain methods and devices for providing the scrambling circuitry for a pay television system on removable cards. EchoStar examined these patents and believes that they are not infringed by any of its products or services. Subsequently, DirecTV and Thomson settled with Broadcast Innovation leaving EchoStar as the only defendant.

On January 23, 2004, the judge issued an order finding the ‘066 patent invalid. Motions with respect to the infringement, invalidity and construction of the ‘094 patent remain pending. EchoStar intends to continue to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that EchoStar infringes on any of the patents, EchoStar may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require EchoStar to materially modify certain user-friendly features that it currently offer to consumers. It is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable outcome of the suit or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

TiVo Inc.

In January of 2004, TiVo Inc. filed a lawsuit against EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit alleges infringement of United States Patent No. 6,233,389 (“the ‘389 patent”). The ‘389 patent relates to certain methods and devices for providing what the patent calls “time-warping”. EchoStar has examined this patent and does not believe that it is infringed by any of its products or services. We intend to vigorously defend this case and we have moved to have it transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that EchoStar infringes this patent, EchoStar may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require EchoStar to materially modify certain user-friendly features that it currently offers to consumers. It is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable outcome of the suit or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

California Action

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 filed against EchoStar 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 EchoStar’s motion for summary judgment was held during 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 EchoStar’s motion for summary judgment with respect to all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Subsequently, EchoStar filed a motion for attorneys’ fees which was denied by the Court. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s granting of EchoStar’s motion for summary judgment and EchoStar cross-appealed the Court’s ruling on EchoStar’s motion for attorneys’ fees. During December 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part; and reversed in part, the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in EchoStar’s favor. Specifically, the Court found there were triable issues of fact as to whether EchoStar may have violated the alleged consumer statutes “with representations concerning the number of channels and the program schedule.” However, the Court found no triable issue of fact as to whether the representations “crystal clear digital video” or “CD quality” audio constituted a cause of action. Moreover, the Court affirmed that the “reasonable consumer” standard was

15

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

applicable to each of the alleged consumer statutes. Plaintiff argued the standard should be the “least sophisticated” consumer. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claim. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court and EchoStar responded. During March 2004, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s Petition for Review. Therefore, the action has been remanded to the trial court pursuant to the instructions of the Court of Appeals. It is not possible to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of any potential liability.

Retailer Class Actions

EchoStar has 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 EchoStar’s satellite hardware retailers. The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between EchoStar and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other compensation. EchoStar is vigorously defending against the suits and has 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. EchoStar has filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to EchoStar’s motion. The Court has not ruled on either of the two motions. It is not possible 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 EchoStar 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 EchoStar and who allege that EchoStar: (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 EchoStar’s satellite television service. During September 2001, the Court granted EchoStar’s motion to dismiss. 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 EchoStar’s motions for sanctions against SDS. Both parties perfected appeals before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the District Court’s denial of EchoStar’s motion for sanctions. The District Court subsequently issued a written opinion containing the same findings. The only issue remaining is EchoStar’s collection of costs, which were previously granted by the Court.

StarBand Shareholder Lawsuit

During August 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 EchoStar’s Board of Directors. The action stems from the defendants’ involvement as directors, and EchoStar’s position as a shareholder, in StarBand, a broadband Internet satellite venture in which EchoStar invested. During July 2003, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on all counts. The Plaintiffs appealed. On April 15, 2004, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case instructing the Chancery Court to re-evaluate its decision in light of a recent opinion of the Delaware Supreme Court, Tooley v. Donaldson, No. 84,2004 (Del. Supr. April 2, 2004). It is not possible to make a

16

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

firm assessment of the probable outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Enron Commercial Paper Investment Complaint

During November 2003, an action was commenced in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, against approximately 100 defendants, including EchoStar, who invested in Enron’s commercial paper. The complaint alleges that Enron’s October 2001 prepayment of its commercial paper is a voidable preference under the bankruptcy laws and constitutes a fraudulent conveyance. The complaint alleges that EchoStar received voidable or fraudulent prepayments of approximately $40.0 million. EchoStar typically invests in commercial paper and notes which are rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations. At the time of EchoStar’s investment in Enron commercial paper, it was considered to be high quality and considered to be a very low risk. 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.

Acacia

In June of 2004, Acacia Media Technologies filed a lawsuit against EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit also named DirecTV, Comcast, Charter, Cox and a number of smaller cable companies as defendants. Acacia is an intellectual property holding company which seeks to license the patent portfolio that it has acquired. The suit alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,132,992, 5,253,275, 5,550,863, 6,002,720 and 6,144,702 (herein after the ‘992, ‘275, ‘863, ‘720 and ‘702 patents respectively). The ‘992, ‘863, ‘720 and ‘702 patents have been asserted against EchoStar although Acacia’s complaint does not identify any products or services that it believes are infringing these patents. These patents relate to various systems and methods related to the transmission of digital data. The ‘992 and ‘702 patents have also been asserted against several internet adult content providers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 12, 2004, that Court issued a Markman ruling which found that the ‘992 and ‘702 patents were not as broad as Acacia had contended. EchoStar intends to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that EchoStar infringes on any of the patents, EchoStar may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require EchoStar to materially modify certain user-friendly features that it currently offers to consumers. It is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable outcome of the suit or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Fox Sports Direct

On June 14, 2004, Fox Sports Direct (“Fox”) sued EchoStar in the United States District Court Central District of California for alleged breach of contract. Fox claims, among other things, that EchoStar underpaid license fees for the period from January 2000 through December 2001 and has requested an accounting for the period from January 2000 through June 2003. Fox has claimed damages of $25.0 million, plus interest. An answer has not yet been filed and no discovery has commenced. It is too early to determine whether or not EchoStar will have liability for license fees in excess of its paid and accrued programming costs, or for interest.

In addition to the above actions, EchoStar is 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 DBS CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued
(Unaudited)

9. Depreciation and Amortization Expense

Depreciation and amortization expense consists of the following:

Cost of sales and operating expense categories included in our accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations do not include depreciation expense related to satellites or equipment leased to customers.

10. Segment Reporting

Financial Data by Business Unit

Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 131, “Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information” (“SFAS 131”) establishes standards for reporting information about operating segments in annual financial statements of public business enterprises and requires that those enterprises report selected information about operating segments in interim financial reports issued to shareholders. Operating segments are components of an enterprise about which separate financial information is available and regularly evaluated by the chief operating decision maker(s) of an enterprise. Under this definition, we currently operate as two business units. The “All other” category consists of revenue and expenses from other operating segments for which the disclosure requirements of SFAS 131 do not apply.

18

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

11. Financial Information for Subsidiary Guarantors

With the exception of certain de minimis domestic and foreign subsidiaries (collectively, the “Non-Guarantors”), our senior notes are fully, unconditionally and jointly and severally guaranteed by all of our subsidiaries (collectively, the “Subsidiary Guarantors”).

The combined assets, stockholder’s equity (deficit), net income (loss) and operating cash flows of the Non-Guarantors represent less than 1% of the combined and consolidated assets, stockholder’s equity (deficit), net income (loss) and operating cash flows of the combined Subsidiary Guarantors for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003. As a result, the Subsidiary Guarantors and Non-Guarantors are combined in the following tables. Consolidating financial information is presented for the following entities:

19

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

Consolidating Balance Sheets – As of June 30, 2004.

20

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

Consolidating Balance Sheets – As of December 31, 2003.

21

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

Consolidating Statements of Operations – Three Months Ended June 30, 2004.

22

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

Consolidating Statements of Operations – Three Months Ended June 30, 2003.