UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Form 10-K

(Mark One)
þ		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     .

Commission file number: 0-26176

EchoStar Communications Corporation

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

     Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Class A common stock, $0.01 par value

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 þ No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes þ No o

As of March 11, 2005, the aggregate market value of Class A common stock held by non-affiliates* of the Registrant approximated $5.9 billion based upon the closing price of the Class A common stock as reported on the Nasdaq National Market as of the close of business on that date.

As of March 11, 2005, the Registrant’s outstanding common stock consisted of 217,156,164 shares of Class A common stock and 238,435,208 shares of Class B common stock, each $0.01 par value.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The following documents are incorporated into this Form 10-K by reference:

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with its 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.

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 turn out to 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 to our expectations and predictions is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following:

i

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

ii

PART I

Item 1. BUSINESS

OVERVIEW

Our Business

Echostar Communications Corporation, through its DISH Network, is a leading provider of satellite delivered digital television to customers across the United States. DISH Network services include hundreds of video, audio and data channels, interactive television channels, digital video recording, high definition television, international programming, professional installation and 24-hour customer service.

We started offering subscription television services on the DISH Network in March 1996. As of December 31, 2004, the DISH Network had approximately 10.905 million subscribers. We currently have twelve owned or leased in-orbit satellites which enable us to offer over 2,000 video and audio channels to consumers across the United States. Since we use many of these channels for local programming, no particular consumer could subscribe to all channels, but all are available using small consumer satellite antennae, or dishes. We believe that the DISH Network offers programming packages that have a better “price-to-value” relationship than packages currently offered by most other subscription television providers. As of December 31, 2004, there were over 24.0 million subscribers to direct broadcast satellite services in the United States. We believe that there are more than 92.0 million pay television subscribers in the United States, and there continues to be significant unsatisfied demand for high quality, reasonably priced television programming services.

DISH Network and EchoStar Technologies Corporation

EchoStar Communications Corporation (“ECC”) is a holding company. Its subsidiaries (which together with ECC are referred to as “EchoStar,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and/or “our”) operate two interrelated business units:

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.

Other Information

We were organized in 1995 as a corporation under the laws of the State of Nevada. Our common stock is publicly traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “DISH.” Our principal executive offices are located at 9601 South Meridian Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado 80112 and our telephone number is (303) 723-1000.

Recent Developments

$1.0 Billion Senior Notes Offering. On October 1, 2004, we sold $1.0 billion principal amount of our 6 5/8% Senior Notes due October 1, 2014. The Notes were sold in a private placement to qualified institutional buyers in reliance on Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933. We used the net proceeds from issuance of the Notes, together with available cash, to redeem all of our outstanding 10 3/8% Senior Notes due 2007.

1

10 3/8% Senior Notes Redemption. Effective October 1, 2004, we redeemed all of our outstanding 10 3/8% Senior Notes due 2007. In accordance with the terms of the indenture governing the notes, the $1.0 billion principal amount of the notes was redeemed at 105.188%, for a total of approximately $1.052 billion. The premium paid of approximately $51.9 million, along with unamortized debt issuance costs of approximately $4.1 million, were recorded as charges to earnings during the fourth quarter of 2004.

Cash Dividend. On December 14, 2004, we paid a one-time cash dividend of $1.00 per share, or approximately $455.7 million, on outstanding shares of our Class A and Class B common stock to shareholders of record at the close of business on December 8, 2004.

Cablevision Satellite Acquisition. On January 20, 2005, we agreed to purchase certain satellite assets from Rainbow DBS Co., a subsidiary of Cablevision Systems Corporation for $200.0 million. Specifically, we have agreed to purchase Rainbow 1, a direct broadcast satellite located at 61.5 degrees West Longitude, together with the rights to 11 DBS frequencies at that location. The satellite includes 13 transponders, up to 12 of which can be operated in “spot beam” mode. Also, as part of this transaction, we will acquire ground facilities and related assets in Black Hawk, S.D. The transaction is subject to customary conditions, including regulatory approval by the FCC. There can be no assurance that such approval will be obtained.

Settlement of EchoStar IV Arbitration. Several years ago, we filed a $219.3 million insurance claim as a result of the failure of our EchoStar IV satellite to operate properly. The satellite insurance consisted of separate, substantially identical policies with many carriers for varying amounts which, in combination, create a total insured amount of $219.3 million. All of the carriers contested the loss claim, resulting in arbitration under the terms of the policies.

On March 4, 2005, we agreed to settle our insurance claim and related claims for accrued interest and bad faith with all carriers who agree to pay their proportionate share of an aggregate net amount of $240.0 million. We retained title to and use of the EchoStar IV satellite. Payment from each settling carrier is due on or before April 26, 2005, with interest commencing to accrue on April 12, 2005. Currently, we have received signed agreements back from insurers representing our 90% of the aggregate amount. While we believe the remaining insurers will each sign the agreement shortly, the arbitration will continue with respect to any insurers who decline to settle.

Amounts payable to us in excess of our previously recorded $106.0 million receivable will be recognized in income during the period in which the respective insurers sign the settlement agreement. See “Item 3 – Legal Proceedings” for more information relating to the underlying insurance claim and our historical accounting for that claim.

Internal Review and Filing of Purported Securities Class Action. Our Audit Committee recently completed a review of recordkeeping and internal control issues relating to certain of our vendor and third party relationships (the “Review”). The Review concluded that the Company’s recordkeeping in prior years and the current control environment were deficient and reported one instance in which one of our executive officers in charge of certain business functions directed the preparation, in prior years, of inaccurate documentation that was used to determine payments made to a vendor. Management has evaluated this instance and determined that it constitutes a “significant deficiency” in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, as defined by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Auditing Standard No. 2. Management’s complete report on internal control over financial reporting is set forth under “Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.” Notwithstanding this determination, no adjustments to our consolidated financial statements were required as a result of the Review, and none were made. We are, however, implementing several changes recommended by the Audit Committee to our governance, operating and control policies and procedures. We have also taken disciplinary action and other steps to remediate the conduct underlying the deficiencies identified by the Audit Committee’s Review.

Following the March 10, 2005 publication of a news article purporting to describe the Review and other matters, we received a phone call from the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission inquiring about the matters described in the news article. The Company intends to fully respond to that inquiry. On March 11, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against us and several of our current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we made material misstatements and omissions by issuing financial statements and “reports on operations” that were not in accordance with GAAP, through inadequate internal controls, failure to disclose related party transactions and improperly booking certain transactions, resulting in violations of several federal securities law provisions. We intend to vigorously defend against this complaint.

DISH NETWORK

Programming

Value-Based Programming Packages. We use a “value-based” strategy in structuring the content and pricing of programming packages available from the DISH Network. For example, we currently sell our entry-level “America’s Top 60” package for $26.99 per month. This package includes 60 of our most popular video channels in digital format. We estimate that cable operators would typically charge over $40.00 per month, on average, for comparable entry-level expanded basic service.

Our “America’s Top 120” package currently sells for $37.99 per month and is similar to an expanded basic cable package plus more than 30 commercial-free, CD-quality music channels. We estimate that cable operators would typically charge over $45.00 per month, on average, for a similar package.

Our “America’s Top 180” currently sells for $47.99 per month, and our “America’s Everything Pak,” which combines our “America’s Top 180” package and more than 30 commercial-free premium movie channels including HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and Starz!, currently sells for $81.99 per month.

2

Cable operators do typically include local channels in their programming packages. However, we can provide satellite-delivered local channels in digital format to any of these packages for an additional $5.99 per month in 155 of the largest markets in the United States, representing over 95% of all of U.S. television households.

We also offer each of these programming packages under our Digital Home Advantage promotion, which can include a dual tuner receiver, installation in up to two rooms, and local channels where available at no additional cost. Our Digital Home Advantage promotion prices are $31.99 per month for “America’s Top 60”, $42.99 per month for “America’s Top 120”, and $52.99 and $86.99 per month, respectively, for “America’s Top 180” and “America’s Everything Pak”. Generally, subscribers to any Digital Home Advantage package may add a digital video recorder to their system for an additional cost of only $5.00 per month.

Movie Packages. We currently offer each of our four movie packages, which include up to 10 movie channels per package, starting at $11.99 per month. We believe we currently offer more movie channels than cable typically offers at a comparable price.

DISH Latino Programming Packages. We also offer a variety of Spanish-language programming packages. Our “DISH Latino” package includes more than 30 Spanish-language programming channels for $24.99 per month. We also offer “DISH Latino Dos,” which includes over 125 English and Spanish-language programming channels for $34.99 per month. Our DISH Latino Max includes more than 170 Spanish and English-language channels for $44.99 per month.

International Programming. We offer over 100 foreign-language channels including Arabic, South Asian, Hindi, Russian, Chinese, Greek and many others. DISH Network remains the pay-TV leader in delivering foreign-language programming to customers in the United States, and our foreign-language programming contributes significantly to our subscriber growth. We believe foreign-language programming is a valuable niche product that attracts new subscribers to DISH Network who are unable to get similar programming elsewhere. However, we face increasing competition from other distributors of foreign language programming, including the Spanish-language programming discussed above, and there can be no assurance that we will continue to experience growth in subscribers to our foreign-language programming services. In addition, the increasing availability of foreign language programming from our competitors, which in certain cases has resulted from our inability to renew programming agreements on an exclusive basis or at all, could contribute to an increase in our subscriber churn. Our agreements with distributors of foreign language programming have varying expiration dates, and some agreements are on a month-to-month basis. There can be no assurance that we will be able to renew these agreements on acceptable terms or at all.

Sales, Marketing and Distribution

Sales Channels. We currently sell EchoStar receiver systems and solicit orders for DISH Network programming services through independent distributors, retailers and consumer electronics stores. While we also sell receiver systems and programming directly, independent retailers are responsible for most of our sales. These independent retailers are primarily local retailers who specialize in TV and home entertainment systems. We also acquire customers through nationwide retailers such as Costco, Sears and certain regional consumer electronic chains. In addition, RadioShack Corporation sells EchoStar receiver systems and markets DISH Network programming services through its 5,200 corporate stores and in approximately 1,000 dealer franchise stores nationwide. We also have an agreement with JVC to distribute our receiver systems under its label through certain of its nationwide retailers.

We offer our distributors and retailers what we believe are competitive incentive programs. Through these programs, qualified distributors and retailers receive, among other things, incentives upon new subscriber activations and generally receive monthly residual incentives dependent on, among other things, continued consumer subscription to qualified programming.

Marketing. We use print, radio, and television, on a local and national basis, to advertise and promote the DISH Network. We also offer point-of-sale literature, product displays, demonstration kiosks and signage for retail outlets. We provide guides that describe DISH Network products and services to our retailers and distributors and conduct periodic educational seminars. Our mobile sales and marketing team visits retail outlets regularly to reinforce training and ensure that these outlets have proper point-of-sale materials for our current promotions. Additionally, we dedicate a DISH Network television channel and website to provide retailers with information about special services and promotions that we offer from time to time.

3

Promotional Subsidies. Our future success in the subscription television industry depends on, among other factors, our ability to acquire and retain DISH Network subscribers. We provide varying levels of subsidies and incentives to attract customers, including leased, free or subsidized receiver systems, installations, programming and other items. This marketing strategy emphasizes our long-term business strategy of maximizing future revenue by selling DISH Network programming to a large potential subscriber base and rapidly increasing our subscriber base. Since we subsidize consumer up-front costs, we incur significant costs each time we acquire a new subscriber. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that, on average, we will be able to fully recoup the up-front costs of subscriber acquisition from future subscription television services revenue.

During July 2000, we began offering our DISH Network subscribers the option to lease receiver systems. Our current equipment lease program, the Digital Home Advantage promotion, offers new customers the ability to lease up to four installed EchoStar receivers, including various premium models such as advanced digital video recorders and high definition receivers, when they subscribe to one of several qualifying programming packages. Although there can be no assurance, we expect this marketing strategy will reduce the cost of acquiring future subscribers because we retain ownership of the receiver systems. Upon termination of service, Digital Home Advantage subscribers are required to return the receiver and certain other equipment to us. While we do not recover all of the equipment upon termination of service, equipment that is recovered after deactivation is reconditioned and re-deployed at a lower cost than new equipment. The effectiveness of our plan to reduce subscriber acquisition costs through redeployment of leased equipment is dependent on our ability to retrieve and cost effectively recondition leased equipment from subscribers who terminate service. Our ability to realize reduced equipment costs from redeploying reconditioned equipment will be negatively impacted by new compression technologies that will inevitably render some portion of our current and future EchoStar receivers obsolete. We will incur additional costs, which may be substantial, to upgrade or replace these set-top boxes.

We base our marketing promotions, among other things, on current competitive conditions. In some cases, if competition increases, or we determine for any other reason that it is necessary to increase our subscriber acquisition costs to attract new customers, our profitability and costs of operation would be adversely affected.

Digital Video Recording and Interactive Service

We continue to expand our offerings to include advanced products such as digital video recorders, or “DVRs” and interactive programming services. DISH Network customers can purchase or lease receivers with built-in hard disk drives that permit viewers to pause and record live programs, including programming in high definition, without the need for videotape. We now offer receivers capable of storing up to 210 hours of programming and expect to increase storage capacity on future receiver models. We also currently offer receivers that provide a wide variety of innovative interactive television services and applications, including shopping and weather channels, wagering and gaming.

Broadband Strategic Alliances

Since 2002, we have entered into agreements to offer a bundled package of services combining DISH Network satellite television service with the voice and data services of various telecommunications companies such as SBC Communications, Inc. (“SBC”) and others.

Beginning in the first quarter of 2004, we commenced sales of a co-branded service featuring our DISH Network service bundled together with SBC’s telephony, high-speed data and other communications services. SBC is marketing the bundled service and is responsible for certain integrated order-entry, customer service and billing. SBC also purchases set-top box equipment from us to lease to bundled service customers. SBC outsources installation and certain customer service functions to us for a fee. As part of the agreement, SBC paid us certain development and implementation fees during 2003 and 2004.

While we expect to continue to pursue opportunities to bundle our DISH Network satellite television service with the voice and data services of SBC and other telecommunications providers, SBC recently announced that in 2005 it will begin deploying an advanced fiber network that will enable it to offer video services directly. Our net new subscriber additions and certain of our other key operating metrics would be adversely affected to the extent SBC de-emphasizes or discontinues its efforts to acquire DISH Network subscribers. Moreover, there can be no assurance

4

that we will be successful in developing significant new bundling opportunities with other telecommunications companies.

Our Satellites

Our satellites operate in the “Ku” and “Ka” band portions of the microwave radio spectrum used for satellite communications. The Ku-band spectrum is split into two segments by the FCC. The 11.7 to 12.2 GHz downlink band, which is the low and medium power portion of the Ku-band, is known as the Fixed Satellite Service (“FSS”) band. The high power portion of the Ku-band within the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz downlink band is known as the Broadcast Satellite Service (“BSS”) band, which is also referred to as Direct Broadcast Satellite or the “DBS” band.

Unlike the DBS spectrum, the FSS spectrum has no predefined frequency plan such that the number and bandwidth of each individual channel can vary and satellite orbital locations are routinely as close together as two degrees. In addition, there are more severe power limitations placed on FSS spectrum. The result of these differences generally means that, while FSS spectrum can be satisfactorily used for delivery of direct to home (“DTH”) services, it can carry somewhat less capacity and generally requires a slightly larger user antenna or consumer dish to adequately receive signals from a satellite.

Ka-band is a higher frequency band than Ku-band and roughly ranges from 18 to 40 GHz. For commercial users, the downlink spectrum is generally considered to consist of frequencies between 18.3 – 18.8 GHz and 19.7 – 20.2 GHz. This part of the Ka-band is also considered to be FSS spectrum, and therefore Ka-band orbital locations can routinely be as close together as two degrees. The higher frequency and closer spacing generally make Ka-band spectrum transmissions more susceptible to various types of signal interference, including interference caused by rain and snow. While several companies in the satellite communications industry have business plans for the use of Ka-band spectrum for video, data and broadband services, the use of Ka-band spectrum for commercial satellite communication services is still in the developmental stage.

Most of our programming is currently transmitted to our customers on DBS frequencies within the Ku-band spectrum. However, we continue to explore other opportunities including partnerships and investments to expand our capacity through the use of other available spectrum, such as FSS services in the Ku and Ka-bands.

Overview of Our Satellites and FCC Authorizations. Our satellites are located in orbital positions, or slots, that are designated by their western longitude. An orbital position describes both a physical location and an assignment of spectrum in the applicable frequency band. The FCC has divided each DBS orbital position into 32 frequency channels. Each transponder on our satellites typically exploits one frequency channel. Through digital compression technology, we can currently transmit between nine and thirteen digital video channels from each transponder. The FCC has licensed us to operate 96 direct broadcast satellite frequencies at various orbital positions including:

We also hold licenses or lease capacity on satellites at two FSS orbital locations including:

5

In addition, we were the winning bidder for the remaining 29 DBS frequencies at the 157 degree orbital location at an FCC auction conducted in July 2004. However, we have not yet been granted the license for these frequencies, and we cannot be certain that the FCC will ultimately grant us these licenses.

We currently broadcast the majority of our programming from the 110 and 119 degree locations. The majority of our customers have satellite receiver systems that are equipped to receive signals from, at least, both of these locations.

Satellite Fleet

We presently have twelve owned or leased satellites in geostationary orbit approximately 22,300 miles above the equator. Each of the eight DBS satellites (EchoStar I through EchoStar VIII) and one FSS Ku/Ka-band satellite (EchoStar IX) we own and operate has a minimum design life of at least 12 years. Our satellite fleet is a major component of our Echostar DBS System. While we believe that overall our satellite fleet is in general good health, during 2004 and prior periods, certain satellites within our fleet have experienced various anomalies, some of which have had a significant adverse impact on their commercial operation.

We currently own a total of nine in-orbit satellites.

EchoStar I and II. EchoStar I and II currently operate at the 148 degree orbital location. Each of these Series 7000 class satellites designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corporation, has 16 transponders that operate at approximately 130 watts of power. While both satellites are currently functioning properly in orbit, similar Lockheed Series 7000 class satellites owned by third parties have experienced total in-orbit failure. While we currently do not have sufficient information available to reach any conclusions as to whether other satellites of the Series 7000 class might be at increased risk of suffering a similar malfunction, no telemetry or other data indicates EchoStar I or EchoStar II would be expected to experience a similar failure. EchoStar I and II are each equipped with 24 Traveling Wave Tube Amplifiers (“TWTA”), of which 16 are required to support the transponders authorized for operation on each satellite. Prior to 2004, failures or reduced capabilities on a single TWTA on each of EchoStar I and II left each satellite with 23 usable TWTAs. While we don’t expect a large number of additional 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 may impact commercial operation of the satellites. We will continue to evaluate the performance of EchoStar I and EchoStar II as new events or changes in circumstances become known.

EchoStar III. EchoStar III currently operates at the 61.5 degree orbital location. During January 2004, a TWTA pair on this satellite failed, resulting in a loss of service on one of our licensed transponders. An additional TWTA pair failed in March 2004. 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 approximately 120 watts per channel, switchable to 16 transponders operating at over 230 watts per channel, 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 it currently can only operate on 18 of the 19 FCC authorized frequencies we utilize at the 61.5 degree west orbital location. While we don’t expect a large number of additional 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 IV. EchoStar IV is currently located at the 157 degree orbital location. Prior to 2004, this satellite experienced failures with the deployment of its solar arrays and with 38 of its 44 transponders (including spares), and further experienced anomalies affecting its thermal systems and propulsion systems. Several years ago, we filed a $219.3 million insurance claim for a total loss under the launch insurance policies covering this satellite. On March 4, 2005, we agreed to settle this claim (see “Item 3 — Legal Proceedings”). On September 4, 2004, the south solar array on EchoStar IV deployed fully and appears to be producing nominal current. There can be no assurance that further material degradation, or total loss of use, of EchoStar IV will not occur in the immediate future. As of December 31, 2003, EchoStar IV was fully depreciated.

6

EchoStar V. EchoStar V is currently located at the 119 degree orbital location. This 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 approximately 110 watts per channel, switchable to 16 transponders operating at approximately 220 watts per channel, the solar array anomalies may prevent the use of some of those 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 as new events or changes in circumstances become known. Increased fuel use resulting from commercial operation of the spacecraft or other events and circumstances would require us to reduce the remaining depreciable life of EchoStar V.

EchoStar VI. EchoStar VI currently operates at the 110 degree orbital location. This satellite has 32 transponders that operate at approximately 120 watts per channel, switchable to 16 transponders operating at approximately 240 watts per channel. 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. Prior to 2004, EchoStar VI lost a total of 3 solar array strings. During 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. An investigation of the solar array anomalies, none of which have impacted commercial operation of the satellite or are expected to reduce the estimated design life of the satellite to less than 12 years, 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. We will continue to evaluate the performance of EchoStar VI as new events or changes in circumstances become known.

EchoStar VII. EchoStar VII currently operates at the 119 degree orbital location. This satellite has 32 transponders that operate at approximately 120 watts per channel, switchable to 16 transponders operating at approximately 240 watts per channel. EchoStar VII also includes spot-beam technology which enables us to increase the number of markets where we provide local channels, but reduces the number of video channels that could otherwise be offered across the entire United States. Each transponder can transmit multiple digital video, audio and data channels. 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. We will continue to evaluate the performance of EchoStar VII as new events or changes in circumstances become known.

EchoStar VIII. EchosStar VIII currently operates at the 110 degree orbital location. This satellite has 32 transponders that operate at approximately 120 watts per channel, switchable to 16 transponders operating at approximately 240 watts per channel. EchoStar VIII also includes spot-beam technology. 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. In January 2005, EchoStar VIII experienced a fault within one of the computer components in the spacecraft control electronics. The system is operating nominally on one processor with limited backup capacity. An investigation is underway to determine the root cause of this anomaly and whether any permanent degradation or loss of redundancy has occurred. While these anomalies are not expected to reduce the estimated design life of the satellite to less than 12 years and have not impacted commercial operation of the satellite to date, until the root causes of the anomalies are determined, there can be no assurance future anomalies will not cause losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite.

7

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 2003, EchoStar VIII experienced anomalies that temporarily halted rotation of each solar array. Both arrays are currently fully functional, but rotating in a mode recommended by the satellite manufacturer which allows full rotation but 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. Until 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.

During 2003, a single battery cell on EchoStar VIII exhibited reduced capacity. There are 72 battery cells on EchoStar VIII and all loads can be maintained for the full design life of the satellite with up to two battery cells fully failed. An investigation of the battery cell anomaly, which has not impacted commercial operation of the satellite, is underway. Until the root cause of the anomaly is determined, there can be no assurance future anomalies will not cause losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite.

We depend on EchoStar VIII to provide local channels to over 40 markets until at least such time as our EchoStar X satellite is successfully launched which is currently expected during the fourth quarter of 2005 (see “Satellites under Construction” below). 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.

EchoStar IX. EchoStar IX currently operates at the 121 degree orbital location. This satellite has 32 Ku-band transponders that operate at approximately 110 watts per channel, along with transponders that can provide services in Ka-Band (a “Ka-band payload”). EchoStar IX provides expanded video and audio channels to DISH Network subscribers who install a specially-designed dish. The Ka-band spectrum is being used to test and verify potential future broadband initiatives and to implement those services.

We currently lease a total of three in-orbit satellites.

AMC-2. AMC-2 currently operates at the 105 degree orbital location. This SES Americom FSS satellite is equipped with 24 medium power FSS Ku transponders and is used primarily to provide local channels by satellite to DISH Network subscribers who install a specially-designed dish. Our lease of this satellite will continue at least until the AMC-15 satellite discussed below is placed in service at this location, which is expected to occur during the second half of 2005.

AMC-15. AMC-15 is currently being relocated to the 113 degree orbital location and is expected to move to the 105 degree orbital location during the second half of 2005. This SES Americom FSS satellite is equipped with 24 Ku FSS transponders that operate at approximately 120 watts per channel and a Ka FSS payload consisting of 12 spot beams. We could use the capacity on AMC-15 to offer a combination of programming including local network channels in additional markets, together with satellite-delivered high-speed internet services.

AMC-16. AMC-16 is currently located at the 85 degree orbital location. This SES Americom FSS satellite is virtually identical to AMC-15 and is equipped with 24 Ku FSS transponders that operate at approximately 120 watts per channel and a Ka FSS payload consisting of 12 spot beams capable of covering full CONUS. We could use the capacity on AMC-16 as a backup for AMC-15, and could also utilize the satellite to offer local network channels in additional markets, together with satellite-delivered high-speed internet services.

Satellite Insurance. We currently do not carry insurance for any of our in-orbit satellites. To satisfy insurance covenants related to our 9 3/8% Senior Notes due 2009 and 10 3/8% Senior Notes due 2007, we previously classified an amount equal to the depreciated cost of five of our satellites as cash reserved for satellite insurance on our balance sheet. As of December 31, 2003, this amount totaled approximately $176.8 million. During 2004, we redeemed all of these Notes (See Note 4 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K) and are no longer subject to these insurance covenants. Since the indentures for our remaining outstanding notes do not have covenants requiring satellite insurance, we reclassified the remaining amount of the reserve to cash and cash equivalents during the fourth quarter of 2004.

We believe we have in-orbit satellite capacity sufficient to expeditiously recover transmission of most programming in the event one of our in-orbit satellites fails. However, programming continuity cannot be assured in the event of multiple satellite losses.

8

Several years ago, we filed a $219.3 million insurance claim for a total loss under the launch insurance policies covering our EchoStar IV satellite. On March 4, 2005 we agreed to settle this claim and related claims for accrued interest and bad faith with all carriers who agree to pay their proportionate share of an aggregate net amount of $240.0 million. We retained title to and use of the EchoStar IV satellite. See “Item 3 – Legal Proceedings” for more information.

Certain Other Risks to Our Satellites. Meteoroid events pose a potential threat to all in-orbit geosynchronous satellites including our DBS satellites. While the probability that our satellites will be damaged by meteoroids is very small, that probability increases significantly when the Earth passes through the particulate stream left behind by various comets.

Occasionally, increased solar activity poses a potential threat to all in-orbit geosynchronous satellites including our direct broadcast satellites. The probability that the effects from this activity will damage our satellites or cause service interruptions is generally very small.

Some decommissioned spacecraft are in uncontrolled orbits which pass through the geostationary belt at various points, and present hazards to operational spacecraft including our direct broadcast satellites. The locations of these hazards are generally well known and may require us to perform maneuvers to avoid collisions.

Satellites under Construction. We have entered into contracts to construct four new satellites.

Satellites under Lease. We have also entered into satellite service agreements to lease capacity on two additional satellites under construction.

9

In addition, on January 20, 2005, we agreed to purchase Rainbow 1, a DBS satellite located at 61.5 degrees West Longitude, together with the rights to 11 DBS frequencies at that location (See “Recent Developments”). The transaction is subject to regulatory approval by the FCC and other regulatory agencies. There can be no assurance that such approval will be obtained.

We are significantly increasing our satellite capacity as a result of the agreements discussed above and other satellite service agreements currently under negotiation. While we are currently evaluating various opportunities to make profitable use of this capacity—including, but not limited to, launching satellite two-way and wireless broadband, increasing our international programming and other services, and expanding our local and high definition programming—we do not have firm plans to utilize all of the additional satellite capacity we expect to acquire. In addition, there can be no assurance that we can successfully develop the business opportunities we currently plan to pursue with this additional capacity. Future costs associated with this additional capacity will negatively impact our margins if we do not have sufficient growth in subscribers or in demand for new programming or services to generate revenue to offset the costs of this increased capacity.

As a result of our recent agreements discussed above, and other satellite service agreements currently under negotiation, we have significantly increased our capacity of satellites and orbital locations. We are currently evaluating various opportunities to make profitable use of this capacity, including, but not limited to, launching satellite two-way and wireless broadband, increasing our international programming and other services, and expanding our local and high definition programming. These business opportunities may not materialize, and accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will be able to utilize this increased capacity profitably.

Components of a DBS System

Overview. In order to provide programming services to DISH Network subscribers, we have entered into agreements with video, audio and data programmers who generally make their programming content available to our digital broadcast operations centers in Cheyenne, Wyoming and Gilbert, Arizona, via commercial satellites or fiber optic networks. We monitor those signals for quality, and can add promotional messages, public service programming, advertising, and other information. Equipment at our digital broadcast operations centers then digitizes, compresses, encrypts and combines the signal with other necessary data, such as conditional access information. We then “uplink” or transmit the signals to one or more of our satellites and broadcast directly to DISH Network subscribers.

In order to receive DISH Network programming, a subscriber needs:

EchoStar Receiver Systems. EchoStar receiver systems include a small satellite dish, a digital satellite receiver that decrypts and decompresses signals for television viewing, a remote control, and other related components. We offer a number of set-top box models. Our standard system comes with an infrared universal remote control, an on-screen interactive program guide and V-chip type technology for parental control. Our premium models include a hard disk drive enabling additional features such as digital video recording of up to 210 hours of programming and a UHF/infrared universal remote. Certain of our standard and premium systems allow independent satellite TV viewing on two separate televisions. We also offer a variety of specialized products including high definition television (“HDTV”) receivers. Set-top boxes communicate with our authorization center through telephone lines to, among other things, report the purchase of pay-per-view movies and other events. DISH Network reception equipment is incompatible with our competitors’ systems.

Although we internally design and engineer our receiver systems, we outsource manufacturing to high-volume contract electronics manufacturers. Sanmina-SCI Corporation is the primary manufacturer of our receiver systems. JVC and Celetronix USA, Inc. also manufacture some of our receiver systems.

We depend on a few manufacturers, and in some cases a single manufacturer, for the production of our receivers and many components of our EchoStar receiver systems that we provide to subscribers. Although there can be no assurance, we do not believe that the loss of any single manufacturer will materially impact our business.

10

Conditional Access System. We use conditional access technology to encrypt our programming so only those who pay can receive it. We use microchips embedded in credit card-sized access cards, called “smart cards,” or in security chips in the satellite receiver, together referred to as “security access devices,” to control access to authorized programming content. ECC owns 50% of NagraStar L.L.C., a joint venture that provides us with security access devices. Nagra USA, a subsidiary of the Kudelski Group, owns the other 50% of NagraStar. NagraStar purchases these security access devices from NagraCard SA, a Swiss company which is also a subsidiary of the Kudelski Group. These security access devices, which we can upgrade over the air or replace periodically, are a key element in preserving the security of our conditional access system. When a consumer orders a particular channel, we send a message by satellite that instructs the security access devices to permit decryption of the programming for viewing by that consumer. The set-top box then decompresses the programming and sends it to the consumer’s television.

Our signal encryption has been pirated, allowing illegal receipt of our programming, and our security systems could be further compromised in the future. Theft of our programming reduces future potential revenue and increases our net subscriber acquisition costs. In addition, theft of our competitors’ programming can also increase our churn. Compromises of our encryption technology could also adversely affect our ability to contract for video and audio services provided by programmers. It is illegal to create, sell or otherwise distribute mechanisms or devices to circumvent that encryption. We continue to respond to compromises of our encryption system with security measures intended to make signal theft of our programming more difficult. To further combat piracy and maintain the functionality of active set-top boxes, we are in the process of replacing older generation smart cards with newer generation smart cards. We expect to complete the replacement of older generation smart cards during the second half of 2005. However, there can be no assurance that these security measures or any future security measures we may implement will be effective in reducing piracy of our programming signals.

Installation. While many consumers have the skills necessary to install our equipment in their homes, we believe that most installations are best performed by professionals, and that on time, quality installations are important to our success. Consequently, we have expanded our installation business, which is conducted through our DISH Network Service L.L.C. subsidiary. We use both employees and independent contractors for professional installations. Independent installers are held to DISH Network Service L.L.C. service standards to attempt to ensure each DISH Network customer receives the same quality installation and service. Our offices and independent installers are strategically located throughout the continental United States. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that our internal installation business helps to improve quality control, decrease wait time on service calls and new installations and helps us better accommodate anticipated subscriber growth.

Digital Broadcast Operations Centers. Our principal digital broadcast operations centers are located in Cheyenne, Wyoming and Gilbert, Arizona. Almost all of the functions necessary to provide satellite-delivered services occur at those locations. The digital broadcast operations centers use fiber optic lines and downlink antennas to receive programming and other data from content providers. For local channels, the programming signals are encoded in the originating city and then backhauled via fiber to our principal digital broadcast operation centers. These centers then uplink programming content to our direct broadcast satellites. Equipment at our digital broadcast operations centers performs substantially all compression and encryption of DISH Network’s programming signals. We are also in the process of building several new mini digital broadcast operations centers that will allow us to better utilize the spot beam capabilities of our satellites.

Customer Service Centers. We currently operate ten customer service centers fielding substantially all of our customer service calls. Potential and existing subscribers can call a single telephone number to receive assistance for hardware, programming, billing, installation and technical support. We continue to work to automate simple phone responses and to increase Internet-based customer assistance in order to better manage customer service costs and improve the customer’s self-service experience.

Subscriber Management. We presently use, and are dependent on, CSG Systems International, Inc.’s software system for the majority of DISH Network subscriber billing and related functions.

11

Competition for our Dish Network Business

We compete in the subscription television service industry against other DBS television providers, cable television and other land-based system operators offering video, audio and data programming and entertainment services. Many of these competitors have substantially greater financial, marketing and other resources than we have. Our earnings and other operating metrics could be materially adversely affected if we are unable to compete successfully with these and other new providers of multi-channel video programming services.

Cable Television. Cable television operators have a large, established customer base, and many cable operators have significant investments in, and access to, programming. Of the 99% of United States television households in which cable television service was available as of December 31, 2004, approximately 62% subscribed to cable. Cable television operators continue to leverage their advantages relative to us by, among other things, bundling their analog video service with expanded digital video services, 2-way high speed internet access, and telephone services. Cable television operators with analog systems are also able to provide service to multiple television sets within the same household at a lesser incremental cost to the consumer, and they are able to provide local and other programming in a larger number of geographic areas.

Some digital cable platforms currently offer a VOD service that enables subscribers to choose from a library of programming selections for viewing at their convenience. We are currently developing our own VOD service alternative which is expected to be launched in late 2005. We cannot assure you that our VOD service, when launched, will be successful in competing with the cable services offering.

DirecTV and other DBS and Direct-to-Home System Operators. During December 2003, an affiliate of News Corporation acquired a 34% controlling interest in The DirecTV Group (formerly known as Hughes Electronics Corporation), the owner of DirecTV. News Corporation’s diverse world-wide satellite, content and other related businesses may provide competitive advantages to DirecTV with respect to the acquisition of programming, content and other assets valuable to our industry. In addition, DirecTV’s satellite receivers are sold in a significantly greater number of consumer electronics stores than ours. As a result of this and other factors, our services are less well known to consumers than those of DirecTV. Due to this relative lack of consumer awareness and other factors, we are at a competitive marketing disadvantage compared to DirecTV. We believe DirecTV continues to be in an advantageous position relative to our company with regard to, among other things, certain programming packages, and possibly, volume discounts for programming offers. DirecTV also recently announced plans to launch four new satellites, two of which are expected to be operational in each of 2005 and 2007, which will be used to offer local and national high definition programming to most of the U.S. population. If DirecTV implements these plans, we may be at a competitive disadvantage.

In addition, during 2004 DirecTV and the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (“NRTC”) entered into an agreement which terminated NRTC’s rights to be the exclusive distributor of DirecTV in large portions of the rural United States. As a result of this agreement, DirecTV is now able to compete directly against us in these territories, and this could adversely affect our ability to continue to add or retain rural subscribers.

Other companies in the United States have conditional permits or have launched satellites or leased transponders for a comparatively small number of DBS assignments that can be used to provide subscription satellite services to portions of the United States. These new entrants may have a competitive advantage over us in deploying some new products and technologies because of the substantial costs we may be required to incur to make new products or technologies available across our installed base of over 11 million subscribers.

VHF/UHF Broadcasters. Most areas of the United States can receive traditional terrestrial VHF/UHF television broadcasts of between 3 and 10 channels. These broadcasters provide local, network and syndicated programming. The local content nature of the programming may be important to the consumer, and VHF/UHF programming is typically provided free of charge. In addition, the FCC has allocated additional digital spectrum to licensed broadcasters. At least during a transition period, each existing television station will be able to retain its present analog frequencies and also transmit programming on a digital channel that may permit multiple programming services per channel. Our business could be adversely affected by continued free broadcast of local and other programming and increased program offerings by traditional broadcasters.

Impact of HDTV. We may be placed at a competitive disadvantage to the extent other multi-channel video providers are able to offer more programming in high definition than we are. We could be further disadvantaged to the extent a significant number of local broadcasters begin offering local channels in high definition, unless we make substantial additional investments in infrastructure to deliver high definition programming. While we expect that we would be able to use a portion of our planned increase in satellite capacity to respond to some of these competitive threats, there can be no assurance that we will be able to effectively compete with high definition program offerings from other video providers.

New Technologies and Competitors. New technologies could also have a material adverse effect on the demand for our DBS services. For example, we face a competitive threat from the build-out of advanced fiber optic networks. Verizon and SBC have recently begun widespread deployment of fiber-optic networks that could allow them to offer video services directly to millions of homes as early as 2006. In addition, telephone companies and

12

other entities are also implementing and supporting digital video compression over existing telephone lines and digital “wireless cable” which may allow them to offer video services without having to build a new infrastructure. Moreover, mergers, joint ventures, and alliances among franchise, wireless or private cable television operators, telephone companies and others may result in providers capable of offering television services in competition with us. Furthermore, all of these companies may use these existing and new technologies to offer a bundle of television and telecommunications services that may prove to be more competitive than our current offerings. We may not be able to compete successfully with existing competitors or new entrants in the market for television services.

ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

EchoStar Technologies Corporation (“ETC”), one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, designs and develops EchoStar receiver systems. Our satellite receivers have won numerous awards from the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association, retailers and industry trade publications. We outsource the manufacture of EchoStar receiver systems to third parties who manufacture the receivers in accordance with our specifications.

The primary purpose of our ETC division is to support the DISH Network. However, in addition to supplying EchoStar receiver systems and related accessories for the DISH Network, ETC also sells similar digital satellite receivers internationally, either directly to television service operators or to our independent distributors worldwide. This has created a source of additional business for us and synergies that directly benefit DISH Network. For example, our satellite receivers are designed around the Digital Video Broadcasting standard, which is widely used in Europe and Asia. The same employees who design EchoStar receiver systems for the DISH Network are also involved in designing set-top boxes sold to international TV customers. Consequently, we benefit from the possibility that ETC’s international projects may result in improvements in design and economies of scale in the production of EchoStar receiver systems for the DISH Network.

We believe that direct-to-home satellite service is particularly well-suited for countries without extensive cable infrastructure, and we are actively soliciting new business for ETC. However, there can be no assurance that ETC will be able to develop additional international sales or maintain its existing business.

Through 2004, our primary international customer was Bell ExpressVu, a subsidiary of Bell Canada, Canada’s national telephone company. We currently have certain binding purchase orders from Bell ExpressVu, and we are actively trying to secure new orders from other potential international customers. However, we cannot guarantee at this time that those negotiations will be successful. Our future international revenue depends largely on the success of these and other international operators, which in turn, depends on other factors, such as the level of consumer acceptance of direct-to-home satellite TV products and the increasing intensity of competition for international subscription television subscribers.

ETC’s business also includes our Atlanta-based EchoStar Data Networks Corporation and our UK-based Eldon Technology Limited subsidiaries. EchoStar Data Networks is a supplier of technology for distributing Internet and other content over satellite networks. Eldon Technology designs and tests various software and other technology used in digital televisions and set-top boxes, strengthening our product design capabilities for satellite receivers and integrated televisions in both the international and United States markets.

Competition for Our ETC Business

Through ETC, we compete with a substantial number of foreign and domestic companies, many of which have significantly greater resources, financial or otherwise, than we have. We expect new competitors to enter this market because of rapidly changing technology. Our ability to anticipate these technological changes and introduce enhanced products expeditiously will be a significant factor in our ability to remain competitive. We do not know if we will be able to successfully introduce new products and technologies on a timely basis in order to remain competitive.

13

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

We are subject to comprehensive regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). We are also regulated by other federal agencies, state and local authorities and the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”). Depending upon the circumstances, noncompliance with legislation or regulations promulgated by these entities could result in suspension or revocation of our licenses or authorizations, the termination or loss of contracts or the imposition of contractual damages, civil fines or criminal penalties.

The following summary of regulatory developments and legislation is not intended to describe all present and proposed government regulation and legislation affecting the video programming distribution industry. Government regulations that are currently the subject of judicial or administrative proceedings, legislative hearings or administrative proposals could change our industry to varying degrees. We cannot predict either the outcome of these proceedings or any potential impact they might have on the industry or on our operations.

FCC Regulation under the Communications Act

FCC Jurisdiction over our Operations. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which we refer to as the “Communications Act,” gives the FCC broad authority to regulate the operations of satellite companies. Specifically, the Communications Act gives the FCC regulatory jurisdiction over the following areas relating to communications satellite operations:

In order to obtain FCC satellite licenses and authorizations, communication satellite operators must satisfy strict legal, technical and financial qualification requirements. Once issued, these licenses and authorizations are subject to a number of conditions including, among other things, satisfaction of ongoing due diligence obligations, construction milestones, and various reporting requirements.

Our Basic DBS Frequency Licenses and Authorizations. Most of our programming is transmitted to our customers on frequencies in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz range, which we refer to as the “DBS” frequencies. We are licensed or authorized by the FCC to operate DBS frequencies at the following orbital locations:

14

We also sublease six transponders (corresponding to six frequencies) at the 61.5 degree orbital location from licensee Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. In addition, we were the winning bidder for the remaining 29 DBS frequencies at the 157 degree orbital location at an FCC auction conducted in July 2004. However, we have not yet been granted the license for these frequencies. We have also applied for a transfer of the 11 DBS frequencies at the 61.5 location currently owned by Rainbow based on our recent agreement to purchase the Rainbow 1 satellite and related assets, see “Recent Developments.” We cannot be certain that the FCC will ultimately grant us the licenses for the additional frequencies at 61.5 or 157.

Duration of our Satellite Licenses and Authorizations. Generally speaking, all of our satellite licenses are subject to expiration unless renewed by the FCC. While under a recent FCC rulemaking the term of certain satellite licenses has been extended from 10 to 15 years, the term of DBS licenses remains at 10 years; our licenses are currently set to expire at various times starting as early as 2006. In addition, our special temporary authorizations are granted for periods of only 180 days or less, subject again to possible renewal by the FCC.

Opposition and other Risks to our Licenses and Authorizations. Several third parties have opposed, and we expect them to continue to oppose, some of our FCC satellite authorizations and pending requests to the FCC for extensions, modifications, waivers and approvals of our licenses. In addition, we may not have fully complied with all of the FCC reporting and filing requirements in connection with our satellite authorizations. Because of this opposition and our failure to comply with certain requirements of our authorizations, it is possible the FCC could revoke, terminate, condition or decline to extend or renew certain of our authorizations or licenses.

Our FSS Licenses. In addition to our DBS licenses and authorizations, we have received conditional licenses from the FCC to operate FSS satellites in the Ka-band and the Ku-band, including licenses to operate EchoStar IX (a hybrid Ka/Ku-band satellite) at the 121 degree orbital location. In addition, EchoStar holds Ka-band licenses at the 97, 113 and 117 degree orbital locations, and extended Ku-band licenses at the 109 and 121 degree orbital locations. Use of these licenses and conditional authorizations is subject to certain technical and due diligence requirements, including the requirement to construct and launch satellites according to specific milestones and deadlines. Our projects to construct and launch Ku-band, extended Ku-band and Ka-band satellites are in various stages of development.

Risks to our Ka-Band and Ku-Band Authorizations. Our Ka-band license at the 121 degree orbital locations allow us to use only 500 MHz of Ka-band spectrum in each direction, while certain other licensees have been authorized to use 1000 MHz in each direction. Our Ka-band licenses at the 97, 113 and 117 degree orbital locations are for the full 1000 MHz in each direction. With respect to these latter Ka-band licenses, the FCC requires construction, launch and operation of the satellites to be completed by December 2008, October 2009, and March 2009, respectively. We recently submitted satellite construction contracts to the FCC for the proposed Ka-band satellites at the 97 and 117 degree orbital locations. We cannot be sure that the FCC will rule that the contracts we submitted comply with their first construction milestone requirements. Moreover, ITU deadlines require Ka-band satellites to be operating at the 97, 113 and 117 degree orbital locations by June of 2005. For our extended Ku-band satellites at the 109 and 121 degree orbital locations, the FCC requires construction, launch and operation of the satellites to be completed by September 2009. There can be no assurance that we will develop acceptable plans to meet all of these deadlines, or that we will be able to utilize any of these orbital slots.

Recent FCC Rulemaking Affecting our Licenses and Applications. The FCC changed its system for processing applications to a “first-come, first-served” process. Since that change became effective, we have filed or refiled, and have pending before the FCC, new applications for as many as nine satellites in several different frequency bands. Several of our direct or indirect competitors have filed petitions to deny or dismiss certain of our pending applications or have requested that conditions be placed on authorizations we requested. We received conditional Ka-band licenses for the 97, 113 and 117 degree orbital locations, and extended Ku-band licenses for the 109 and 121 degree orbital locations, while a number of our other applications have been denied or dismissed without prejudice by the FCC. We cannot be sure that the FCC will grant any of our outstanding applications, or that the authorizations, if granted, will not be subject to onerous conditions. Moreover, the cost of building, launching and insuring a satellite can be as much as $250.0 million or more, and we cannot be sure that we will be able to construct

15

and launch all of the satellites for which we have requested authorizations. The FCC has also imposed a $3.0 million (previously $5.0 million) bond requirement for all future satellite licenses, which would be forfeited by a licensee that does not meet its diligence milestones for a particular satellite. We have provided the FCC with letters of credit, collateralized by approximately $15 million of our restricted cash and marketable investment securities, to satisfy this requirement for all of our Ka-band and extended Ku-band licenses.

New Satellite License Auction Proceedings. The FCC has proposed to auction licenses for two DBS frequencies at the 61.5 degree orbital location. On December 27, 2004, the FCC ruled that DBS providers that hold DBS licenses at orbital locations capable of serving the entire continental United States (including EchoStar) would not be eligible to bid for the license for the two frequencies at the 61.5 degree orbital location, and would not be qualified to acquire that license for a period of four years following grant. While this ruling pertains to different DBS channels than the 11 channels that we have sought to acquire from Rainbow (as previously discussed), we cannot be sure that this ruling will not adversely affect the FCC’s disposition of our application for assignment of the 11 channels to us.

Expansion DBS Spectrum. The FCC has also allocated additional expansion spectrum for DBS services commencing in 2007. This could create significant additional competition in the market for subscription television services. We filed applications for this additional spectrum during March 2002 but cannot predict whether the FCC will grant these applications.

Other Services in the DBS band. The FCC has also adopted rules that allow non-geostationary orbit fixed satellite services to operate on a co-primary basis in the same frequency band as direct broadcast satellite and Ku-band-based fixed satellite services. In the same rulemaking, the FCC authorized use of the DBS spectrum that we use by terrestrial communication services and it auctioned licenses for these terrestrial services during January 2004. There can be no assurance that operations by non-geostationary orbit fixed satellite services or terrestrial communication services in the DBS band will not interfere with our DBS operations and adversely affect our business.

Proposals to allow 4.5 Degree Spacing. During April 2002, SES Americom, Inc. requested a declaratory ruling that it is in the public interest for SES Americom to offer satellite capacity for third party direct-to-home services to consumers in the United States and certain British Overseas Territories in the Caribbean. SES Americom proposes to employ a satellite licensed by the Government of Gibraltar to operate in the same uplink and downlink frequency bands as us, from an orbital position located in between two orbital locations where EchoStar and DirecTV have already positioned satellites. DirecTV, which opposes SES’s petition, has itself filed a petition for rulemaking for standards to permit such 4.5 degree spacing. On January 23, 2004, we filed comments in response to DirecTV’s petition for rulemaking. The possibility that the FCC will allow service to the U.S. from closer-spaced DBS slots may permit additional competition against us from other DBS providers.

Competition for Canadian Orbital Slots. DirecTV requested and obtained FCC authority to provide service to the United States from a Canadian DBS orbital slot. We have also requested authority to do the same from the Canadian DBS orbital slot at 129 degrees and an FSS orbital slot at 118.7 degrees. The possibility that the FCC will allow service to the U.S. from foreign slots may permit additional competition against us from other DBS providers.

Rules Relating to Alaska and Hawaii. The holders of DBS authorizations issued after January 19, 1996 must provide DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii if such service is technically feasible from the authorized orbital location. Our authorizations at the 110 degree, 148 degree and 157 degree orbital locations were received after January 19, 1996. While we provide service to Alaska and Hawaii from both the 110 and 119 degree orbital locations, those states have expressed the view that our service should more closely resemble our service to the mainland United States and otherwise needs improvement. Further, the satellites we currently operate at the 148 and 157 degree orbital locations are not able to provide service to Alaska and/or Hawaii. We received temporary conditional waivers of the service requirement for both the 148 and 157 degree orbital locations. However, the FCC could revoke these waivers at any time.

The FCC has also concluded a rulemaking which seeks to streamline and revise its rules governing DBS operators. In connection with this rulemaking, the FCC clarified its geographic service requirements to introduce a requirement that we provide programming packages to residents of Hawaii and Alaska that are “reasonably comparable” to what

16

we offer in the contiguous 48 states. We cannot be sure that this requirement will not affect us adversely by requiring us to devote additional resources to serving these two states.

Other Communications Act Provisions

Rules Relating to Broadcast Services. The FCC imposes different rules for “subscription” and “broadcast” services. We believe that because we offer a subscription programming service, we are not subject to many of the regulatory obligations imposed upon broadcast licensees. However, we cannot be certain whether the FCC will find in the future that we must comply with regulatory obligations as a broadcast licensee, and certain parties have requested that we be treated as a broadcaster. If the FCC determines that we are a broadcast licensee, it could require us to comply with all regulatory obligations imposed upon broadcast licensees, which are generally subject to more burdensome regulation than subscription television service providers.

Public Interest Requirements. Under a requirement of the Cable Act, the FCC imposed public interest requirements on DBS licensees. These rules require us to set aside four percent of our channel capacity exclusively for noncommercial programming for which we must charge programmers below-cost rates and for which we may not impose additional charges on subscribers. This could displace programming for which we could earn commercial rates and could adversely affect our financial results. The FCC has generally not reviewed all aspects of our methodology for processing public interest carriage requests, computing the channel capacity we must set aside or determining the rates that we charge public interest programmers. We cannot be sure that if the FCC were to review these methodologies it would find them in compliance with the public interest requirements.

Moreover, certain parties have challenged certain aspects of our methodology for processing public interest carriage requests in a pending proceeding, and we received a letter from the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau regarding these issues. We cannot be sure that the Commission will not take enforcement action against us, which may result in fines and/or changes to our methodology for compliance with these rules. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau is also investigating the public interest qualifications of a programmer that at one time occupied a channel of public interest capacity on our system.

Other Open Access Requirements. The FCC has also commenced an open access proceeding regarding distribution of high-speed Internet access services and interactive television services. We cannot be sure that the FCC will not ultimately impose open access obligations on us, which could be very onerous, and could create a significant strain on our capacity and ability to provide other services.

Plug and Play and Broadcast Flag. The FCC adopted the so-called “plug and play” standard for compatibility between digital television sets and cable systems. That standard was developed through negotiations involving the cable and consumer electronics industries, but not us, and we are concerned that it may impose certain onerous “encoding rules” on all multichannel video programming distributors, including us, and that the standard and its implementation process favor cable systems. We have filed a petition for review of the FCC’s “plug and play” order with the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on various grounds, but we cannot be sure that the court will not uphold the FCC’s decision. The FCC also adopted the “broadcast flag” method for copy-protecting content broadcast digitally over the air. The cable industry has requested that certain requirements established by the FCC also extend to DBS set-top boxes. It is too early to fully assess the risks to us from the adoption of these standards and the possible extension of these requirements to DBS boxes.

Emergency Alert System. The FCC recently initiated a rulemaking seeking comments on whether its rules that require broadcasters and cable operators to transmit emergency alert messages should be extended to other distributors, such as DBS operators. We currently do not have the capability of receiving, processing or relaying alerts from the 550 emergency alert system areas back into those areas, and the difficulties of obtaining this capability are likely insurmountable. Even if technically feasible, such capability would likely require costly and substantial modifications to our system or to our subscriber set-top boxes.

The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act and Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act

Retransmission of Distant Networks. The Copyright Act, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, or “SHVIA,” permits satellite retransmission of distant network channels only to “unserved households.” An

17

example of a distant station retransmission is a Los Angeles network station retransmitted by satellite to a subscriber outside of Los Angeles. That subscriber qualifies as an “unserved household” if he or she cannot receive, over the air, a signal of sufficient intensity (“Grade B” intensity) from a local station affiliated with the same network.

SHVIA has also established a process whereby consumers predicted to be served by a local station may request that that station waive the unserved household limitation so that the requesting consumer may receive distant signals by satellite. If the waiver request is denied, SHVIA entitles the consumer to request an actual test, with the cost to be borne by either the satellite carrier (such as us), the broadcast station, or the consumer. The testing process required by the statute can be very costly.

In addition, SHVIA has affected and continues to affect us adversely in several other respects. The legislation prohibits us from carrying more than two distant signals for each broadcasting network and leaves the FCC’s Grade B intensity standard unchanged without future legislation. The FCC recently rejected our petition for reconsideration of its methodology for predicting whether a particular household is served by a signal of Grade B intensity. While we have filed a petition for federal appellate review of the FCC’s action we cannot be sure that the court will not uphold the FCC’s decision. The FCC rules mandated by SHVIA also require us to delete substantial programming (including sports programming) from these signals. Although we have implemented certain measures in order to comply with these rules, these requirements have significantly hampered, and may further hamper, our ability to retransmit distant network and superstation signals. The burdens the rules impose upon us may become so onerous that we may be required to substantially alter, or stop retransmitting some programming channels. In addition, the FCC’s sports blackout requirements, which apply to all distant network signals, may require costly upgrades to our system.

On December 8, 2004, Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, or “SHVERA.” SHVERA extends our legal authority to retransmit distant stations under SHVIA to December 31, 2009, but imposes new and complex restrictions on that authority. In general, we will no longer be able to offer distant network stations to new subscribers in markets in which we offer local network stations. In addition, our ability to retransmit distant digital network stations today depends on whether a household is unserved by the analog signal of the local network station. While the statute gives us the ability to engage in signal strength testing to determine whether a household can receive the digital signal of the local network station, this ability does not commence until at least April 30, 2006 or July 15, 2007 (depending on the market and whether extensions are granted), and is also subject to certain restrictions. It is too early to fully assess all of the implications of SHVERA for our retransmissions of distant network stations.

SHVERA also amended the royalty provisions applicable to our retransmission of distant network channels and superstations. While the initial royalty rate specified in SHVERA for analog distant network and superstation signals is that in effect on July 1, 2004, SHVERA has increased the initial rate for digital station retransmissions. In addition, SHVERA provides that these rates may be modified by voluntary negotiation or through arbitration initiated by the Librarian of Congress if no voluntary agreement is reached. While we have reached a conditional agreement with certain (but not all) copyright owners, we may be required to submit to arbitration to obtain agreements with others, and there is a risk we may be required to pay significantly higher royalty rates for these distant stations as a result.

While SHVERA gives us the ability that cable operators already have to also import into a local market certain stations from neighboring markets that are deemed “significantly viewed” in the local market, that ability is subject to a number of restrictions, including the requirement of receiving retransmission consent and the prohibition on importing a digital signal of better resolution than the local digital network station that we carry.

Opposition to Our Delivery of Distant Signals. See “Item 3 – Legal Proceedings – Distant Network Litigation” for information regarding opposition to our delivery of distant signals.

Retransmission of Local Networks. SHVIA generally gives satellite companies a statutory copyright license to retransmit local broadcast channels by satellite back into the market from which they originated, subject to obtaining the retransmission consent of the local network station. If we fail to reach retransmission consent agreements with broadcasters we cannot carry their signals. This could have an adverse effect on our strategy to compete with cable and other satellite companies which provide local signals. While we have been able to reach retransmission consent agreements with most local network stations in markets where we currently offer local channels by satellite, roll-out

18

of local channels in additional cities will require that we obtain additional retransmission agreements. We cannot be sure that we will secure these agreements or that we will secure new agreements upon the expiration of our current retransmission consent agreements, some of which are short term.

“Must Carry” and Other Requirements. SHVIA also imposed “must carry” requirements on DBS providers and the FCC has adopted detailed “must carry” rules. These rules generally require that satellite distributors carry all the local broadcast stations requesting carriage in a timely and appropriate manner in areas where they choose to offer local programming, not just the four major networks. Since we have limited capacity, the number of markets in which we can offer local programming is reduced by the “must carry” requirements. The must carry legislation also includes provisions which could expose us to material monetary penalties, and permanent prohibitions on the sale of all local and distant network channels, based on inadvertent violations of the legislation, prior law, or the FCC rules.

Several “must carry” complaints by broadcasters against us are pending at the FCC. The FCC has ruled against us in certain of these proceedings, and we cannot be sure that the FCC will rule in our favor in other pending or future proceedings. Adverse rulings could result in a decrease in the number of local areas where we can offer local network programming. This in turn could increase churn in those markets and preclude us from offering local network channels in new markets, thereby reducing our competitiveness.

Also, SHVERA requires, among other things, that all local broadcast channels delivered by satellite to any particular market be available from a single dish within 18 months of the law’s December 8, 2004 effective date. Because we had planned to transition all local channels in any particular market to the same dish by 2008 rather than in the shorter transition period mandated by SHVERA, satellite capacity limitations may force us to move the local channels in as many as 30 markets to different satellites, requiring subscribers in those markets to install a second or a different dish to continue receiving their local network channels. We may be forced to stop offering local channels in some of those markets altogether.

The transition of all local channels to the same dish could result in disruptions of service for a substantial number of our customers, and our ability to timely comply with this requirement without incurring significant additional costs is dependent on, among other things, the successful launch and operation of one or more additional satellites. It is possible that the costs of compliance with this requirement could exceed $100.0 million. To the extent some of those costs are passed on to our subscribers, and because many subscribers may be unwilling to install a second dish where one had been adequate, we expect that our subscriber churn could be negatively impacted.

In the meantime, we cannot be sure that the FCC will not interpret or implement its existing rules in such a manner as to inhibit our use of a two-dish solution to comply with the “must carry” requirements. The National Association of Broadcasters and Association of Local Television Stations filed an emergency petition during 2002 asking the FCC to modify or clarify its rules to prohibit or hamper our compliance plan. In response, during April 2002, a bureau of the FCC issued a declaratory ruling and order finding that our compliance plan violated certain provisions of SHVIA and the FCC’s “must carry” regulations. Challenges to the April 2002 order have been filed by various parties, including one by us, and are presently pending. During April 2002, the bureau also issued an order granting in part numerous complaints filed against us by individual broadcast stations that claimed violations of the “must carry” requirements similar to those addressed in the prior April 2002 order. Depending upon the ultimate outcome of these proceedings (including the extent to which our compliance reports are accepted), further orders by a bureau of the FCC or by the FCC itself could result in a decrease in the number of local areas where we will offer local network programming until new satellites are launched. This, in turn, could significantly increase the churn of subscribers in those areas where local network programming is no longer offered and impair our ability-to gain new subscribers in those areas, which could materially adversely affect our financial performance. We could also be exposed to damage claims if we are found by any court to have violated the “must carry” requirements, which could have a material adverse affect on our financial position.

In addition, while the FCC has decided for now not to impose on satellite carriers “must carry” for high definition television stations or dual digital/analog or multicast carriage obligations - i.e., additional requirements in connection with the carriage of digital television stations that go beyond carriage of one video signal (whether analog or standard definition digital) for each station — the FCC still has pending rulemaking proceedings on these matters. While the FCC recently ruled against dual and multicast carriage for cable companies, we cannot be certain that this decision will be upheld on review, that there will not be legislation overturning it, or that it will be applied to satellite carriers. In addition, certain parties have continued to urge the FCC to require satellite HDTV must-carry.

19

These proceedings may result in further, even more onerous, digital carriage requirements. HDTV must-carry would likely require us to reduce the number of markets that we are otherwise able to serve with local stations in order to carry multiple signals for local stations in the markets that we would continue to serve.

Dependence on Cable Act for Program Access

We purchase a substantial percentage of our programming from cable-affiliated programmers. The Cable Act’s provisions prohibiting exclusive contracting practices with cable affiliated programmers have been extended from October 2002 to October 2007, but this extension could be reversed. Upon expiration of those provisions, many popular programs may become unavailable to us, causing a loss of customers and adversely affecting our revenues and financial performance. Any change in the Cable Act and the FCC’s rules that permit the cable industry or cable-affiliated programmers to discriminate against competing businesses, such as ours, in the sale of programming could adversely affect our ability to acquire programming at all or to acquire programming on a cost-effective basis. We believe that the FCC generally has not shown a willingness to enforce the program access rules aggressively. As a result, we may be limited in our ability to obtain access (or nondiscriminatory access) to programming from programmers that are affiliated with the cable system operators.

Affiliates of certain cable providers have denied us access to sports programming they feed to their cable systems terrestrially, rather than by satellite. To the extent that cable operators deliver additional programming terrestrially in the future, they may assert that this additional programming is also exempt from the program access laws. These restrictions on our access to programming could materially adversely affect our ability to compete in regions serviced by these cable providers.

The International Telecommunication Union

Our DBS system also must conform to the International Telecommunication Union, or “ITU,” broadcasting satellite service plan. If any of our operations are not consistent with this plan, the ITU will only provide authorization on a non-interference basis pending successful modification of the plan or the agreement of all affected administrations to the non-conforming operations. Accordingly, unless and until the ITU modifies its broadcasting satellite service plan to include the technical parameters of DBS applicants’ operations, our satellites, along with those of other DBS operators, must not cause harmful electrical interference with other assignments that are in conformance with the plan. Further, DBS satellites are not presently entitled to any protection from other satellites that are in conformance with the plan. The United States government has filed modification requests with the ITU for EchoStars I through VIII. The ITU has requested certain technical information in order to process the requested modifications. We have cooperated, and continue to cooperate, with the FCC in the preparation of its responses to the ITU requests. We cannot predict when the ITU will act upon these requests for modification or if they will be made.

Export Control Regulation

We are required to obtain import and general destination export licenses from the United States government to receive and deliver components of direct-to-home satellite TV systems. In addition, the delivery of satellites and related technical information for the purpose of launch by foreign launch services providers is subject to strict export control and prior approval requirements.

PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS

Many entities, including some of our competitors, have or may in the future obtain patents and other intellectual property rights that cover or affect products or services related to those that we offer. In general, if a court determines that one or more of our products infringes on intellectual property held by others, we may be required to cease developing or marketing those products, to obtain licenses from the holders of the intellectual property, or to redesign those products in such a way as to avoid infringing the patent claims. If those intellectual property rights are held by a competitor, we may be unable to obtain the intellectual property at any price, which could adversely affect our competitive position.

We may not be aware of all intellectual property rights that our products may potentially infringe. In addition, patent applications in the United States are confidential until the Patent and Trademark Office issues a patent and,

20

accordingly, our products may infringe claims contained in pending patent applications of which we are not aware. Further, the process of determining definitively whether a claim of infringement is valid often involves expensive and protracted litigation, even if we are ultimately successful on the merits.

We cannot estimate the extent to which we may be required in the future to obtain intellectual property licenses or the availability and cost of any such licenses. Those costs, and their impact on our net income, could be material. Damages in patent infringement cases may also include treble damages in certain circumstances. To the extent that we are required to pay unanticipated royalties to third parties, these increased costs of doing business could negatively affect our liquidity and operating results. We are currently defending patent infringement actions. We cannot be certain the courts will conclude these companies do not own the rights they claim, that our products do not infringe on these rights, that we would be able to obtain licenses from these persons on commercially reasonable terms or, if we were unable to obtain such licenses, that we would be able to redesign our products to avoid infringement. See “Item 3 — Legal Proceedings.”

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

We are subject to the requirements of federal, state, local and foreign environmental and occupational safety and health laws and regulations. These include laws regulating air emissions, water discharge and waste management. We attempt to maintain compliance with all such requirements. We do not expect capital or other expenditures for environmental compliance to be material in 2005 or 2006. Environmental requirements are complex, change frequently and have become more stringent over time. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that these requirements will not change or become more stringent in the future in a manner that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

SEGMENT REPORTING DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA DATA

For operating segment and principal geographic area data for 2004, 2003 and 2002 see Note 10 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

EMPLOYEES

We had approximately 20,000 employees at December 31, 2004, most of whom are located in the United States. We generally consider relations with our employees to be good.

Although a total of approximately 40 employees in one of our field offices have voted to unionize, we are not currently a party to any collective bargaining agreements. However, we are currently negotiating a collective bargaining agreement at this office.

21

WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION

We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act and accordingly file our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The Public may read and copy any materials filed with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. Please call the SEC at (800) SEC-0330 for further information on the Public Reference Room. As an electronic filer, our public filings are also maintained on the SEC’s Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that website is http://www.sec.gov.

WEBSITE ACCESS

Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act also may be accessed free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we have electronically filed such material with, or furnished it to, the SEC. The address of that website is http://www.echostar.com.

We have adopted a written code of ethics that applies to all of our directors, officers and employees, including our principal executive officer and senior financial officers, in accordance with Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder. Our code of ethics is available on our corporate website at www.echostar.com. In the event that we make changes in, or provide waivers of, the provisions of this code of ethics that the SEC requires us to disclose, we intend to disclose these events on our website.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
(furnished in accordance with Item 401 (b) of Regulation S-K, pursuant to General Instruction G(3) of Form 10-K)

The following table sets forth the name, age and offices with EchoStar of each of our executive officers, the period during which each executive officer has served as such, and each executive officer’s business experience during the past five years:

Charles W. Ergen. Mr. Ergen has been Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of EchoStar since its formation and, during the past five years, has held various executive officer and director positions with EchoStar’s subsidiaries. Mr. Ergen, along with his spouse and James DeFranco, was a co-founder of EchoStar in 1980.

O. Nolan Daines. Mr. Daines is the Executive Vice President of Information Technology and Broadband and is currently responsible for EchoStar’s broadband initiatives including strategic alliances with telecommunication partners. Mr. Daines joined EchoStar as Senior Vice President in September 2002. He served on EchoStar’s Board of Directors and its Audit Committee from March 1998 until September 2002. In addition, until May 2002, Mr. Daines served as a member of EchoStar’s Executive Compensation Committee. In 1993, Mr. Daines founded

22

DiviCom, Inc., where he held various executive officer positions from the formation of DiviCom until October 1999.

James DeFranco. Mr. DeFranco, currently the Executive Vice President of EchoStar, has been a Vice President and a Director of EchoStar since its formation and, during the past five years, has held various executive officer and director positions with EchoStar’s subsidiaries. Mr. DeFranco, along with Mr. Ergen and Mr. Ergen’s spouse, was a co-founder of EchoStar in 1980.

Mark W. Jackson. Mr. Jackson is the President of EchoStar Technologies Corporation. Mr. Jackson served as Senior Vice President of EchoStar Technologies Corporation from April 2000 until June 2004 and as Senior Vice President of Satellite Services from December 1997 until April 2000.

Michael Kelly. Mr. Kelly is the Executive Vice President of DISH Network Service L.L.C. and Customer Service Operations. Mr. Kelly served as Senior Vice President of DISH Network Service L.L.C. from March 2001 until February 2004 and as Senior Vice President of International Programming from March 2000 until March 2001. Mr. Kelly joined EchoStar in March 2000 following EchoStar’s acquisition of Kelly Broadcasting Systems, Inc. From January 1991 until March 2000, Mr. Kelly served as President of Kelly Broadcasting Systems, Inc. where he was responsible for all components of the business, including operations, finance, and international and domestic business development.

David K. Moskowitz. Mr. Moskowitz is the Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of EchoStar. Mr. Moskowitz joined EchoStar in March 1990. He was elected to EchoStar’s Board of Directors during 1998. Mr. Moskowitz is responsible for all legal affairs and certain business functions for EchoStar and its subsidiaries.

David J. Rayner. Mr. Rayner is the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of EchoStar. Mr. Rayner is responsible for all accounting and finance functions of the Company. Prior to joining EchoStar, Mr. Rayner served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Time Warner Telecom from June 1998 to December 2004. During his time with Time Warner Telecom, Mr. Rayner served as Vice President — Finance from February 1997 to May 1998 and was Controller from May 1994 to February 1997. From 1982 to 1994, Mr. Rayner held various financial and operational management positions with Time Warner Cable.

Steven B. Schaver. Mr. Schaver was named President of EchoStar International Corporation in April 2000. Mr. Schaver served as EchoStar’s Chief Financial Officer from February 1996 through August 2000 and served as EchoStar’s Chief Operating Officer from November 1996 until April 2000.

Michael Schwimmer. Mr. Schwimmer is the Executive Vice President of Programming and Marketing. Mr. Schwimmer served as Senior Vice President of Programming from February 2002 to June 2004 and as Vice President of Programming from July 1997 to February 2002.

There are no arrangements or understandings between any executive officer and any other person pursuant to which any executive officer was selected as such. Pursuant to the Bylaws of EchoStar, executive officers serve at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

23

Item 2. PROPERTIES

The following table sets forth certain information concerning our principal properties:

In addition to the principal properties listed above, we operate several DISH Network service centers strategically located in regions throughout the United States.

Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

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. In December 1998, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami 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, 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 SHVIA 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.

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

24

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 the litigation and jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal. On March 10, 2004, we reached a private settlement with CBS, another of the plaintiffs in the litigation and jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal. We have also reached private settlements with many independent stations and station groups. We were 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 District Court issued a final judgment in June 2003. 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. 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. We ask the Court to reconsider the award and the Court has vacated the fee award. When the award was vacated, the District Court also allowed us 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’s 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 us to use a computer model to re-qualify, 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 nonetheless receive those channels by satellite. Further, even though 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.

We believe the District Court made a number of errors and appealed the decision. Plaintiffs cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals granted our request to stay the injunction until our appeal is decided. Oral arguments occurred during February 2004. It is not possible to predict how or when the Court of Appeals will rule on the merits of our appeal.

In the event the Court of Appeals upholds the injunction, 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 cannot predict with any degree of certainty how many subscribers would cancel their primary DISH Network programming as a result of termination of their distant network channels. We could be required to terminate distant network programming to all subscribers in the event the plaintiffs prevail on their cross-appeal and we are 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.

Satellite Insurance

Several years ago, we 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

25

Reinsurance Company), 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 us a total of approximately $88.0 million, or 40% of the total policy amount, in settlement of the EchoStar IV insurance claim. We rejected this settlement offer and submitted our claim to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the insurance policies.

On March 4, 2005, we agreed to settle our insurance claim and related claims for accrued interest and bad faith with all carriers who agree to pay their proportionate share of an aggregate net amount of $240.0 million. We retained title to and use of the EchoStar IV satellite. Payment from each settling carrier is due on or before April 26, 2005, with interest commencing to accrue on April 12, 2005. Currently, we have received signed agreements back from insurers representing over 90% of the aggregate amount. While we believe the remaining insurers will each sign the agreement shortly, the arbitration will continue with respect to any insurers who decline to settle.

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.

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. Gemstar filed counterclaims alleging infringement of additional patents and asserted new patent infringement counterclaims.

In February 2001, Gemstar filed additional patent infringement actions against us in the District Court in Atlanta, Georgia and with the ITC. We settled all of the litigation with Gemstar during 2004 (See Note 2 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K ).

Superguide

During 2000, Superguide Corp. (“Superguide”) 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. We examined these patents and believe that they are not infringed by any of our products or services.

On summary judgment, the District Court ruled that none of the asserted patents were infringed by us. These rulings were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. During February 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. Based upon the settlement with Gemstar discussed above, we now have an additional defense in this case based upon a license from Gemstar. We will continue to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that we infringe on any of the patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly

26

electronic programming guide and related features that we 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.

Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C.

In November of 2001, Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C. filed a lawsuit against us, 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. We examined these patents and believe that they are not infringed by any of our products or services. Subsequently, DirecTV and Thomson settled with Broadcast Innovation leaving us as the only defendant.

During January 2004, the judge issued an order finding the ‘066 patent invalid. In August of 2004, the Court ruled the ‘094 invalid in a parallel case filed by Broadcast Innovation against Charter and Comcast. Our case is stayed pending the appeal of the Charter case. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that we infringe on any of the patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we 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.

During January 2004, TiVo Inc. filed a lawsuit against us 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.” We have examined this patent and do not believe that it is infringed by any of our products or services. During March 2005, the Court denied our motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that we infringe this patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we 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.

Acacia

In June 2004, Acacia Media Technologies filed a lawsuit against us 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 us.

The asserted 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.

Acacia’s various patent infringement cases have now been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District court for the Northern District of California. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that we infringe on any of the patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we 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.

27

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 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 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 attorneys’ 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 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 our favor. Specifically, the Court found there were triable issues of fact whether we 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 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 we 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. Hearings on class certification were conducted on December 21, 2004 and on February 7, 2005. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification on February 10, 2005. It is uncertain whether the Plaintiff will appeal this decision. Therefore, 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

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 filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to our motion. The Court granted a limited discovery period which ended November 15, 2004. The Court is hearing discovery related motions and we expect the Court to follow with a briefing schedule for the motion for summary judgment. 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 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. 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 perfected appeals before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the District Court’s denial of

28

our motion for sanctions. The District Court subsequently issued a written opinion containing the same findings. The only issue remaining is our collection of costs, which were previously granted by the Court.

StarBand Shareholder Lawsuit

During August 2002, a limited group of shareholders in StarBand, a broadband Internet satellite venture in which we invested, filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against us 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 us 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 our position as a shareholder, in StarBand. 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). Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint which was denied by the Court. The Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion to amend and the appeal is pending. It is not possible to make a 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 us, 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 we received voidable or fraudulent prepayments of approximately $40.0 million. We typically invest 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 our investment in Enron commercial paper, it was considered to be high quality and considered to be a very low risk. The defendants have moved the Court to dismiss the case on grounds that Enron’s complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. Those motions are currently under consideration by the Court. 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.

Bank One

During March 2004, Bank One, N.A. (“Bank One”) filed suit against us and one of our subsidiaries, EchoStar Acceptance Corporation (“EAC”), in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio alleging breach of a duty to indemnify. Bank One alleges that EAC is contractually required to indemnify Bank One for a settlement it paid to consumers who entered private label credit card agreements with Bank One to purchase satellite equipment in the late 1990s. Bank One alleges that we entered into a guarantee wherein we agreed to pay any indemnity obligation incurred by Bank One. During April 2004, we removed the case to federal court in Columbus, Ohio. We deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. We filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint which was granted in part and denied in part. The Court granted our motion, agreeing we did not owe Bank One a duty to defend the underlying lawsuit. However, the Court denied the motion in that Bank One will be allowed to attempt to prove that we owed Bank One a duty to indemnify. The case is currently in discovery. It is too early in the litigation to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of any potential liability against us.

Church Communications Network, Inc.

During August 2004, Church Communications Network, Inc. (“CCN”) filed suit against EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (“ESLLC”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. CCN contends that our contractual relationship with Dominion Video Satellite, Inc., a direct broadcast provider that airs only Christian programming, constitutes a breach of a commercial television services agreement between ESLLC and CCN (the “CCN Agreement”). Further, CCN contends that our reluctance to disclose the confidential provisions of the Dominion/EchoStar agreement warrant causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and non-disclosure. We filed a motion to dismiss CNN’s complaint, or alternatively to transfer

29

the case to a Colorado court. The Court denied our motion to dismiss, but granted our motion to transfer. As a result, the action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Thereafter, we filed a motion to dismiss the case in the Colorado court. The motion to dismiss is currently pending before the Court and the case is currently in discovery.

Although the CCN Agreement specifically limits damages to $500,000, CCN initially sought $1.5 million. As this case progressed, CCN initially increased the amount of its alleged damages to over $3.0 million and has recently indicated that it is now seeking damages in excess of $15.0 million. As this is currently in early discovery it is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Vivendi

In January 2005, Vivendi Universal, S.A. (“Vivendi”), filed suit against EchoStar Communications Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that we have anticipatorily repudiated or are in breach of an alleged agreement between EchoStar and Vivendi pursuant to which we are allegedly required to broadcast a music-video channel provided by Vivendi. Vivendi’s complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages in an unspecified amount. Vivendi has since filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, in which it asks the Court to order us to broadcast the Vivendi music-video channel during the pendency of the litigation and to pay Vivendi for the provision of its music-video channel. We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a Court determines that Vivendi is entitled to a preliminary injunction, we may be required to broadcast the Vivendi music-video channel during the pendency of the litigation, which would impact the bandwidth that we have available to broadcast other services. In the event that a Court ultimately determines that we have a contractual obligation to broadcast the Vivendi music-video channel and that we are in breach of that obligation, we may be required to broadcast the Vivendi music-video channel and be subject to substantial damages. 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

During June 2004, Fox Sports Direct (“Fox”) sued us in the United States District Court Central District of California for alleged breach of contract. During October 2004, we reached a settlement with Fox for an immaterial amount.

Other

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.

Item 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

No items were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2004.

PART II

Market Price of and Dividends on the Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

Market Information. Our Class A common stock is quoted on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “DISH.” The sale prices shown below reflect inter-dealer quotations and do not include retail markups, markdowns, or commissions and may not necessarily represent actual transactions. The high and low closing sale prices of our Class A common stock during 2003 and 2004 on the Nasdaq National Market (as reported by Nasdaq) are set forth below.

30

As of March 11, 2005, there were approximately 4,819 holders of record of our Class A common stock, not including stockholders who beneficially own Class A common stock held in nominee or street name. As of March 11, 2005, all 238,435,208 outstanding shares of our Class B common stock were held by Charles W. Ergen, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. There is currently no trading market for our Class B common stock.

Dividend. On December 14, 2004, we paid a one-time cash dividend of $1.00 per share, or approximately $455.7 million, on outstanding shares of our Class A and Class B common stock to shareholders of record at the close of business on December 8, 2004.

We currently do not intend to declare additional dividends on our common stock. Payment of any future dividends will depend upon our earnings and capital requirements, restrictions in our debt facilities, and other factors the Board of Directors considers appropriate. We currently intend to retain our earnings, if any, to support future growth and expansion. See “Item 7. — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans. See Item 12 – Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management.

31

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

The following table provides information regarding purchases of our Class A common stock made by us for the period from October 1, 2004 through March 11, 2005.

Item 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The selected consolidated financial data as of and for each of the five years ended December 31, 2004 have been derived from, and are qualified by reference to our Consolidated Financial Statements. Beginning January 1, 2004, we combined certain revenue and cost of sales items into other captions. All prior period amounts have been conformed to the current period presentation. See further discussion under Item 7. – “Explanation of Key Metrics and Other Items.” This data should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes thereto for the three years ended December 31, 2004, and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this report.

32

33

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our strategy for 2005 will focus on improving our operating results and free cash flow by attempting to increase our subscriber base, reduce churn, control rising subscriber acquisition costs and maintain or improve operating margins. We will also focus on improving our competitive position by leveraging our increased satellite capacity to pursue strategic initiatives.

Operational Results and Goals

Increase our subscriber base and reduce churn. We added approximately 1.480 million net new subscribers during 2004, ending the year with approximately 10.905 million DISH Network subscribers. We remain committed to growing our subscriber base with high quality customers by continuing to offer compelling consumer promotions. These promotions include offers of free or low cost advanced consumer electronics products, such as digital video recorders and high definition receivers, as well as various promotional offers of our DISH Network programming packages, which we believe generally have a better “price-to-value” relationship than packages currently offered by most other subscription television providers.

However, there are many reasons we may not be able to maintain our current rate of new subscriber growth. For example, our subscriber growth would decrease if our partners in our co-branding and other distribution relationships de-emphasize or discontinue their efforts to acquire DISH network subscribers, or if they begin offering non-DISH Network video services. Our subscriber growth would also be negatively impacted to the extent our competitors offer more attractive consumer promotions, including, among other things, better priced or more attractive programming packages or more compelling consumer electronic products and services, including advanced digital video recorders, video on demand (“VOD”) services, and HDTV services or additional local channels. Many of our competitors are also better equipped than we are to offer video services bundled with other telecommunications services such as telephone and broadband data services, including wireless services.

In order to increase our subscriber base we must control our rate of customer turnover, or “churn.” Our percentage monthly churn for the year ended December 31, 2004 was approximately 1.62%, compared to our percentage churn for the same period in 2003 of approximately 1.57%. Our principal strategy to control churn is to attract higher quality long term customers by imposing heightened credit requirements and tailoring our promotions toward subscribers desiring multiple receivers and advanced products such as digital video recorders and high definition receivers. We also plan to continue to offer advanced products to existing customers through our lease promotions and to initiate other loyalty programs to improve our overall subscriber retention. However, there can be no assurance these and other actions we may take to control subscriber churn will be successful, and we are unlikely to be able to continue to grow our subscriber base at current rates if we cannot control our customer churn.

We also continue to undertake initiatives with respect to our conditional access system to further enhance the security of the DISH Network signal and attempt to make theft of our programming commercially impractical or uneconomical. However, piracy and many other factors may have a material adverse impact on our subscriber churn.

Control rising subscriber acquisition costs. We generally subsidize installation and all or a portion of the cost of EchoStar receiver systems in order to attract new DISH Network subscribers, and these and other subscriber acquisition costs have increased significantly over the past year. If a subscriber churns earlier than previously estimated, we may not fully recover the costs related to the acquisition of that subscriber. Our principal strategies to control rising subscriber acquisition costs involve growing our base with higher quality customers who are less likely to churn and reducing the overall cost of subsidized equipment we provide to new customers. Our principal method for reducing the cost of subscriber equipment is to lease our receiver systems to new subscribers rather than selling systems to them at little or no cost. Leasing enables us to, among other things, reduce our future subscriber acquisition costs by redeploying equipment returned by disconnected lease subscribers to new subscribers. We are further reducing the cost of subscriber equipment through our design and deployment of EchoStar receivers with multiple tuners that allow the subscriber to receive our DISH Network services in multiple rooms using a single set-top box, thereby reducing the number of EchoStar receivers we deploy to each subscriber household. However, our overall subscriber acquisition costs, including amounts expensed and capitalized, both in the aggregate and on a per new subscriber basis, may materially increase in the future to the extent that we introduce more aggressive promotions

34

or newer, more expensive consumer electronics products in response to new promotions and products offered by our competitors. In addition, new compression technologies will inevitably render some portion of our current and future EchoStar receivers obsolete and we will incur additional costs, which may be substantial, to upgrade or replace these set-top boxes.

Maintain or improve operating margins. We will continue to work to generate cost savings during 2005 by improving our operating efficiency and attempting to control rising programming costs. During 2004, our operating margins were negatively impacted by costs associated with the expansion of our installation, in-home service and call center operations. We are attempting to control these costs by improving the quality of the initial installation, providing better subscriber education in the use of our products and services, and enhancing our training programs for our in-home service and call center representatives. However, these initiatives may not be sufficient to maintain or increase our operational efficiencies and we may not be able to continue to grow our operations cost effectively.

Our operating margins have also been adversely impacted by rising programming costs. Payments we make to programmers for programming content represent one of the largest components of our operating costs. We expect programming providers to continue to demand higher rates for their programming. We will continue to negotiate aggressively with programming providers in an effort to control rising programming costs. However, there can be no assurance we will be successful in controlling these costs, and we may be forced to drop one or more channels if we cannot reach acceptable agreements with all of our content providers. In addition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to increase the price of our programming to offset these programming rate increases without affecting the competitiveness of our programming packages.

Leverage Increased Satellite Capacity. We have recently entered into agreements to purchase or lease a substantial amount of additional satellite capacity. We are currently evaluating various opportunities to utilize this capacity, including, but not limited to, launching satellite two-way and wireless broadband data services, increasing our international programming and expanding our local and high definition programming. However, we face a variety of risks and uncertainties that may prevent us from utilizing this additional satellite capacity profitably. These risks include, among other things, the risks that there may be insufficient market demand for these new services and program offerings, or that customers might find competing services and program offerings more attractive. In addition, many of these new services depend on successful development of new technologies which may not perform as we expect. Our results of operation and financial condition will be adversely affected if we cannot make profitable use of this additional satellite capacity.

Explanation of Key Metrics and Other Items

Subscriber-related revenue. “Subscriber-related revenue” consists principally of revenue from basic, movie, local, international and pay-per-view subscription television services, advertising sales, digital video recorder fees, equipment rental fees and additional outlet fees from subscribers with multiple set-top boxes and other subscriber revenue. Contemporaneous with the commencement of sales of co-branded services pursuant to our agreement with SBC during the first quarter of 2004, “Subscriber-related revenue” also includes revenue from equipment sales, installation and other services related to that agreement. Revenue from equipment sales to SBC is deferred and recognized over the estimated average co-branded subscriber life. Revenue from installation and certain other services performed at the request of SBC is recognized upon completion of the services.

Development and implementation fees received from SBC are being recognized in “Subscriber-related revenue” over the next several years. In order to estimate the amount recognized monthly, we first divide the number of co-branded subscribers activated during the month under the SBC agreement by total estimated co-branded subscriber activations during the life of the contract. We then multiply this percentage by the total development and implementation fees received from SBC. The resulting estimated monthly amount is recognized as revenue ratably over the estimated average co-branded subscriber life.

Effective January 1, 2004, we combined “Subscription television service” revenue and “Other subscriber-related revenue” into “Subscriber-related revenue.” All prior period amounts were reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

35

Equipment sales. “Equipment sales” consist of sales of digital set-top boxes and related components by our ETC subsidiary to an international DBS service provider. “Equipment sales” also include unsubsidized sales of DBS accessories to retailers and other distributors of our equipment domestically and to DISH Network subscribers. “Equipment sales” does not include revenue from sales of equipment to SBC. Effective January 1, 2004, “Equipment sales” includes non-DISH Network receivers and other accessories sold by our EchoStar International Corporation subsidiary to international customers which were previously included in “Other” revenue. All prior period amounts were reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

Other. “Other” sales consists principally of subscription television service revenues from the C-band subscription television service business of Superstar/Netlink Group L.L.C. (“SNG”) that we acquired in April 2004.

Subscriber-related expenses. “Subscriber-related expenses” principally include costs incurred in connection with our in-home service and call center operations, overhead costs associated with our installation business, programming expenses, copyright royalties, residual commissions paid to retailers or distributors, billing, lockbox, subscriber retention and other variable subscriber expenses. Contemporaneous with the commencement of sales of co-branded services pursuant to our agreement with SBC during the first quarter of 2004, “Subscriber-related expenses” also include the cost of sales and expenses from equipment sales, direct costs of installation and other services related to that relationship. Cost of sales from equipment sales to SBC are deferred and recognized over the estimated average co-branded subscriber life. Expenses from installation and certain other services performed at the request of SBC are recognized as the services are performed.

Satellite and transmission expenses. “Satellite and transmission expenses” include costs associated with the operation of our digital broadcast centers, the transmission of local channels, satellite telemetry, tracking and control services, satellite and transponder leases, and other related services.

Cost of sales – equipment. “Cost of sales – equipment” principally includes costs associated with digital set-top boxes and related components sold by our ETC subsidiary to an international DBS service provider and unsubsidized sales of DBS accessories to DISH Network subscribers and to retailers and other distributors of our equipment domestically. “Cost of sales – equipment” does not include the costs from sales of equipment to SBC. Effective January 1, 2004, “Cost of sales – equipment” includes non-DISH Network receivers and other accessories sold by our EchoStar International Corporation subsidiary to international customers which were previously included in “Cost of sales – other.” All prior period amounts conform to the current period presentation.

Cost of sales – other. “Cost of sales – other” principally includes programming and other expenses associated with the C-band subscription television service business of SNG we acquired in April 2004.

Subscriber acquisition costs. Under most promotions, we subsidize the installation and all or a portion of the cost of EchoStar receiver systems in order to attract new DISH Network subscribers. Our “Subscriber acquisition costs” include the cost of EchoStar receiver systems sold to retailers and other distributors of our equipment, the cost of receiver systems sold directly by us to subscribers, net costs related to our promotional incentives, and costs related to installation and acquisition advertising. We exclude the value of equipment capitalized under our equipment lease program from our calculation of “Subscriber acquisition costs.” We also exclude payments and the value of returned equipment related to disconnected lease program subscribers from our calculation of “Subscriber acquisition costs.”

SAC and Equivalent SAC. We are not aware of any uniform standards for calculating SAC and believe presentations of SAC may not be calculated consistently by different companies in the same or similar businesses. We calculate SAC by dividing total “Subscriber acquisition costs” for a period by the number of gross new DISH Network subscribers during the period. We include all new DISH Network subscribers in our calculation, including DISH Network subscribers added with little or no subscriber acquisition costs. “Equivalent SAC” adds to “Subscriber acquisition costs” the value of equipment capitalized under our new subscriber lease program less the value of returned equipment related to disconnected lease program subscribers, which became available for sale rather than being redeployed through the lease program, together with payments received in connection with equipment not returned to us.

General and administrative expenses. “General and administrative expenses” primarily include employee-related costs associated with administrative services such as legal, information systems, accounting and finance. It also

36

includes outside professional fees (i.e. legal and accounting services) and building maintenance expense and other items associated with administration.

Interest expense. “Interest expense” primarily includes interest expense, prepayment premiums and amortization of debt issuance costs associated with our debt and convertible debt securities, net of capitalized interest.

Other. The main components of “Other” income and expense are equity in earnings and losses of our affiliates, gains and losses on the sale of investments, and impairment of marketable and non-marketable investment securities.

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”). EBITDA is defined as “Net income (loss)” plus “Interest expense” net of “Interest income,” “Taxes” and “Depreciation and amortization.”

DISH Network subscribers. We include customers obtained through direct sales, and through our retail networks, including our co-branding relationship with SBC and other distribution relationships, in our DISH Network subscriber count. We believe our overall economic return for co-branded and traditional subscribers will be comparable. We also provide DISH Network service to hotels, motels and other commercial accounts. For certain of these commercial accounts, we divide our total revenue for these commercial accounts by an amount approximately equal to the retail price of our most widely distributed programming package, AT60 (but taking into account, periodically, price changes and other factors), and include the resulting number, which is substantially smaller than the actual number of commercial units served, in our DISH Network subscriber count.

During April 2004, we acquired the C-band subscription television service business of SNG, the assets of which primarily consist of acquired customer relationships. Although we expect to convert some of these customer relationships from C-band subscription television services to our DISH Network DBS subscription television service, acquired C-band subscribers are not included in our DISH network subscriber count unless they have also subscribed to our DISH Network DBS television service.

Monthly average revenue per subscriber (“ARPU”). We are not aware of any uniform standards for calculating ARPU and believe presentations of ARPU may not be calculated consistently by other companies in the same or similar businesses. We calculate average monthly revenue per subscriber, or ARPU, by dividing average monthly “Subscriber-related revenues” for the period (total “Subscriber-related revenues” during the period divided by the number of months in the period) by our average DISH Network subscribers for the period. Average DISH Network subscribers are calculated for the period by adding the average DISH Network subscribers for each month and dividing by the number of months in the period. Average DISH Network subscribers for each month are calculated by adding the beginning and ending DISH Network subscribers for the month and dividing by two. As discussed in “Subscriber-related revenue” above, effective January 1, 2004 we include amounts previously reported as “Other subscriber-related revenue” in our ARPU calculation. All prior period amounts conform to the current period presentation.

Subscriber churn/subscriber turnover. We are not aware of any uniform standards for calculating subscriber churn and believe presentations of subscriber churn may not be calculated consistently by different companies in the same or similar businesses. We calculate percentage monthly subscriber churn by dividing the number of DISH Network subscribers who terminate service during each month by total DISH Network subscribers as of the beginning of that month. We calculate average subscriber churn for any period by dividing the number of DISH Network subscribers who terminated service during that period by the average number of DISH Network subscribers eligible to churn during the period, and further dividing by the number of months in the period. Average DISH Network subscribers eligible to churn during the period are calculated by adding the DISH Network subscribers as of the beginning of each month in the period and dividing by the total number of months in the period.

Free cash flow. We define free cash flow as “Net cash flows from operating activities” less “Purchases of property and equipment,” as shown on our Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

37

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Year Ended December 31, 2004 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2003.

38

DISH Network subscribers. As of December 31, 2004, we had approximately 10.905 million DISH Network subscribers compared to approximately 9.425 million at December 31, 2003, an increase of approximately 15.7%. DISH Network added approximately 1.480 million net new subscribers for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to approximately 1.245 million net new subscribers during the same period in 2003. We believe the increase in net new subscribers resulted from a number of factors, including the commencement of sales under our co-branding agreement with SBC and other distribution relationships and an increase in our distribution channels. Temporary product shortages and installation delays during the second half of 2003 were substantially eliminated during the first quarter of 2004 which also contributed to the current year increase.

A material portion of our new subscriber additions are derived from our relationship with SBC. However, SBC recently announced that in 2005 it will begin deploying an advanced fiber network that will enable it to offer video services directly. Our net new subscriber additions and certain of our other key operating metrics would be adversely affected to the extent SBC de-emphasizes or discontinues its efforts to acquire DISH Network subscribers.

Additionally, as the size of our subscriber base continues to increase, if percentage subscriber churn remains constant, increasing numbers of gross new subscribers are required to sustain net subscriber growth.

Subscriber-related revenue. DISH Network “Subscriber-related revenue” totaled $6.677 billion for the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $1.267 billion or 23.4% compared to the same period in 2003. This increase was directly attributable to continued DISH Network subscriber growth and the increase in “ARPU” discussed below.

ARPU. Monthly average revenue per subscriber was approximately $54.87 during the year ended December 31, 2004 and approximately $51.21 during the same period in 2003. The $3.66 or 7.1% increase in monthly average revenue per DISH Network subscriber is primarily attributable to price increases of up to $2.00 in February 2004 and 2003 on some of our most popular packages, and from equipment sales, installation and other services related to our relationship with SBC. This increase was also attributable to a reduction in the number of DISH Network subscribers receiving subsidized programming through our free and discounted programming promotions, the increased availability of local channels by satellite, increases in our advertising sales and increases in the number of DISH Network subscribers with multiple set-top boxes and digital video recorders. We provided local channels by satellite in 152 markets as of December 31, 2004 compared to 101 markets as of December 31, 2003.

Impacts from our litigation with the networks in Florida, FCC rules governing the delivery of superstations, and other factors could cause us to terminate delivery of network channels and superstations to a substantial number of our subscribers, which could cause many of those customers to cancel their subscription to our other services. In the event the Court of Appeals upholds the Miami District Court’s network litigation injunction, 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 cannot predict with any degree of certainty how many subscribers might ultimately cancel their primary DISH Network programming as a result of termination of their distant network channels. We could be required to terminate distant network programming to all subscribers in the event the plaintiffs prevail on their cross-appeal and we are permanently enjoined from delivering all distant network channels. Termination of distant network programming to subscribers would result in, among other things, a reduction in average monthly revenue per subscriber and a temporary increase in subscriber churn.

In April 2002, the FCC concluded that our “must carry” implementation methods were not in compliance with the “must carry” rules. If the FCC finds our subsequent remedial actions unsatisfactory, while we would attempt to continue providing local network channels in all markets without interruption, we could be forced by capacity constraints to reduce the number of markets in which we provide local channels. This could cause a temporary increase in churn and a small reduction in average monthly revenue per subscriber.

Equipment sales. For the year ended December 31, 2004, “Equipment sales” totaled $373.3 million, an increase of $77.8 million or 26.4% compared to the same period during 2003. This increase principally resulted from an increase in sales of DBS accessories to retailers and other distributors of our equipment domestically and to DISH Network subscribers.

39

We currently have certain binding purchase orders and a minimum volume commitment with an international DBS service provider through March 31, 2006 and we are actively trying to secure new orders from other potential international customers. However, we cannot guarantee at this time that those negotiations will be successful. A significant portion of our equipment revenue depends largely on sustaining substantial orders from this international DBS service provider and other international operators, which in turn, depends on other factors, such as the level of consumer acceptance of direct-to-home satellite TV products and the increasing intensity of competition for international subscription television subscribers. We have recently decided to downsize and eliminate certain product lines sold by our EchoStar International Corporation subsidiary and accordingly, we expect that future sales of our non-DISH Network receivers and other accessories to international customers will decline as compared to historical levels.

Other. “Other” sales totaled $100.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $66.6 million compared to the same period during 2003. This increase is primarily attributable to the subscription television service revenues from C-band subscribers of the SNG business that we acquired in April 2004.

Subscriber-related expenses. “Subscriber-related expenses” totaled $3.567 billion during the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $859.5 million or 31.7% compared to the same period in 2003. The increase in “Subscriber-related expenses” was primarily attributable to the increase in the number of DISH Network subscribers, which resulted in increased expenses to support the DISH Network. “Subscriber-related expenses” represented 53.4% and 50.1% of “Subscriber-related revenue” during the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The increase in this expense to revenue ratio primarily resulted from increases in our programming and subscriber retention costs, and costs associated with the expansion of our installation, in-home service and call center operations. These increased operational costs, some of which are temporary, related to, among other things, more complicated installations required by receivers with multiple tuners and a larger dish, or “SuperDISH” which is used to receive programming from our FSS satellites. The increase also resulted from cost of sales and expenses from equipment sales, installation and other services related to our relationship with SBC. Since margins related to our co-branded subscribers are lower than for our traditional subscribers, we expect this relationship to continue to negatively impact this ratio to the extent that we continue to add co-branded subscribers under our SBC agreement. The ratio of “Subscriber-related expenses” to “Subscriber-related revenue” could also continue to increase if our programming and retention costs increase at a greater rate than our “Subscriber-related revenue” and if we are unable to improve efficiencies related to our installation, in-home service and call center operations.

We currently offer local broadcast channels in approximately 155 markets across the United States. In 38 of those markets, two dishes are necessary to receive all local channels in the market. SHVERA now requires, among other things, that all local broadcast channels delivered by satellite to any particular market be available from a single dish within 18 months of the law’s December 8, 2004 effective date. Because we had planned to transition all local channels in any particular market to the same dish by 2008 rather than in the shorter transition period mandated by SHVERA, satellite capacity limitations may force us to move the local channels in as many as 30 markets to different satellites, requiring subscribers in those markets to install a second or a different dish to continue receiving their local network channels. We may be forced to stop offering local channels in some of those markets altogether.

The transition of all local channels to the same dish could result in disruptions of service for a substantial number of our customers, and our ability to timely comply with this requirement without incurring significant additional costs is dependent on, among other things, the successful launch and operation of one or more additional satellites. It is possible that the costs of compliance with this requirement could exceed $100.0 million. To the extent some of those costs are passed on to our subscribers, and because many subscribers may be unwilling to install a second dish where one had been adequate, we expect that our subscriber churn could be negatively impacted.

In the normal course of business, we enter into various contracts with programmers to provide content. Our programming contracts generally require us to make payments based on the number of subscribers to which the respective content is provided. Consequently, our programming expenses will continue to increase to the extent we are successful in growing our subscriber base. In addition, because programmers continue to raise the price of content, there can be no assurance that our “Subscriber-related expenses” as a percentage of “Subscriber-related revenue” will not materially increase absent corresponding price increases in our DISH Network programming packages.

40

Satellite and transmission expenses. “Satellite and transmission expenses” totaled $112.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $32.9 million or 41.5% compared to the same period in 2003. This increase primarily resulted from commencement of service and operational costs associated with the increasing number of markets in which we offer local network channels by satellite as previously discussed, and increases in our FSS satellite lease payment obligations. “Satellite and transmission expenses” totaled 1.7% and 1.5% of “Subscriber-related revenue” during each of the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The increase in the expense to revenue ratio principally resulted from additional operational costs to support the commencement of service and on-going operations of our local markets discussed above. These expenses will increase further in the future as we increase the size of our satellite fleet, if we obtain in-orbit satellite insurance, as we increase the number and operations of our digital broadcast centers and as additional local markets and other programming services are launched.

Cost of sales – equipment. “Cost of sales – equipment” totaled $305.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $110.8 million or 57.0% compared to the same period in 2003. This increase primarily resulted from the increase in sales of DBS accessories to retailers and other distributors of our equipment domestically and to DISH Network subscribers discussed above, and approximately $18.4 million in charges related to slow moving and obsolete inventory. “Cost of sales – equipment” represented 81.8% and 65.8% of “Equipment sales,” during the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The increase in the expense to revenue ratio principally related to the charges for slow moving and obsolete inventory discussed above, and an approximate $6.8 million reduction in the cost of set-top box equipment during 2003 resulting from a change in estimated royalty obligations. This increase in the expense to revenue ratio also related to a decline in margins on the sales of DBS accessories and on sales by our ETC subsidiary to an international DBS service provider due to reductions in prices and increased sales of lower margin accessories.

Cost of sales – other. “Cost of sales – other” totaled $33.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $29.8 million compared to the same period in 2003. This increase is primarily attributable to expenses associated with the C-band subscription television service business of SNG we acquired in April 2004.

Subscriber acquisition costs. “Subscriber acquisition costs” totaled approximately $1.528 billion for the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $215.8 million or 16.4% compared to the same period in 2003. “Subscriber acquisition costs” during the year ended December 31, 2003 included a benefit of approximately $77.2 million comprised of approximately $42.8 million related to a reduction in the cost of set-top box equipment resulting from a change in estimated royalty obligations and $34.4 million from a litigation settlement. The increase in “Subscriber acquisition costs” was attributable to a larger number of gross DISH Network subscriber additions during the year ended December 2004 compared to the same period in 2003, partially offset by a higher number of DISH Network subscribers participating in our equipment lease program and the acquisition of co-branded subscribers during 2004 as discussed under “SAC and Equivalent SAC” below.

SAC and Equivalent SAC. Subscriber acquisition costs per new DISH Network subscriber activation were approximately $444 for the year ended December 31, 2004 and approximately $453 during the same period in 2003. SAC during the year ended December 31, 2003 included the benefit of approximately $77.2 million discussed above. Absent this benefit, our SAC for 2003 would have been approximately $27 higher, or $480. The decrease in SAC during the year ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003 (excluding this benefit) was directly attributable to the acquisition of co-branded subscribers during 2004. Excluding the effect of co-branded subscribers, SAC would have increased during the current year as compared to the same period in 2003. The increase in SAC (excluding the effect of co-branded subscribers) was primarily related to more expensive promotions offered during 2004 including up to three free receivers for new subscribers and free advanced products, such as digital video recorders and high definition receivers. Further, during 2004, since a greater number of DISH Network subscribers activated multiple receivers, receivers with multiple tuners or other advanced products, including SuperDISH, installation costs increased as compared to 2003. These factors were partially offset by an increase in DISH Network subscribers participating in our equipment lease program and reduced subscriber acquisition advertising.

Penetration of our equipment lease program increased during the second half of 2004. Our capital expenditures will continue to increase to the extent we maintain or increase our lease penetration as a percentage of new subscriber additions. However, we believe the increase in capital expenditures from penetration of our equipment lease program will continue to be partially mitigated by the redeployment of equipment returned by disconnected lease program

41

subscribers. Our “Subscriber acquisition costs,” both in aggregate and on a per new subscriber activation basis, may further materially increase in the future to the extent that we introduce other more aggressive promotions if we determine that they are necessary to respond to competition, or for other reasons. See further discussion under “Liquidity and Capital Resources – Subscriber Retention and Acquisition Costs.”

Equipment capitalized under our lease program for new customers totaled approximately $574.8 million and $108.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Returned equipment related to disconnected lease program subscribers, which became available for sale rather than being redeployed through the lease program, together with payments received in connection with equipment not returned to us, totaled approximately $60.8 million and $30.2 million during the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. If we included in our calculation of SAC the equipment capitalized less the value of equipment returned and payments received, our Equivalent SAC would have been approximately $593 during 2004 compared to $480 during 2003. As discussed above, “Subscriber acquisition costs” during 2003 included a benefit of approximately $77.2 million or $27 per subscriber. Absent this benefit, our Equivalent SAC, would have been $507 for the year ended December 31, 2003. This increase is primarily attributable to a greater number of DISH Network subscribers activating multiple receivers, and advanced products, such as SuperDISH, digital video recorders and high definition receivers.

Subscriber acquisition promotions. As previously discussed, our “Subscriber acquisitions costs” include, among other things, net costs related to our Subscriber acquisition promotions. During the year ended December 31, 2004, our significant new subscriber promotions were as follows:

Digital Home Advantage – Effective February 1, 2004, our Digital Home Advantage promotion provided new lease subscribers up to four installed EchoStar receivers, including various premium models, with a qualifying programming subscription. The subscriber is required to pay a monthly rental fee for each leased receiver, but is not required to agree to a minimum lease period. The subscriber must provide a valid major credit card, their social security number, have an acceptable credit score, and pay a one-time set-up fee of $49.99. The subscriber receives a $49.99 credit on their first month’s bill. Effective October 19, 2004, the promotion was expanded whereby the consumer may agree to either a one or two year commitment in exchange for receiving the benefits of our Digital Home Protection Plan, an optional extended warranty program, without charge for one or two years, respectively. Since we retain ownership of equipment installed pursuant to the Digital Home Advantage promotion, equipment costs are capitalized and depreciated over a period of up to four years. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate duration of our current equipment lease promotion, we expect it to continue through at least July 31, 2005.

Free Dish – Effective February 1, 2004, our Free DISH promotion provided new subscribers with a choice of up to three installed EchoStar receivers, including one premium receiver model for $49.99. The subscriber receives a $49.99 credit on their first month’s bill. To be eligible, subscribers must provide a valid major credit card, their social security number, have an acceptable credit score, and make a one or two year commitment to subscribe to a qualified programming package, depending on the set-top box models selected by the subscriber. Certain advanced products, including digital video recorders and high definition receivers, require additional upgrade fees. The Free Dish promotion ended on January 31, 2005.

Free for All – Effective February 1, 2004, our Free for All promotion provides new subscribers who purchase one or two installed receiver systems for $149.00 or $199.00, respectively, a monthly credit of $10.00 for 15 or 20 months, respectively. The subscriber must subscribe to a qualifying programming package and provide their social security number. Effective February 1, 2005, new subscribers under our Free for All promotion who purchase one or two receiver systems and subscribe to a qualifying programming package receive a monthly credit of $5.00 for 30 or 40 months, respectively. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate duration of the Free for All promotion, we expect it to continue through at least July 31, 2005.

General and administrative expenses. “General and administrative expenses” totaled $397.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $65.0 million or 19.5% compared to the same period in 2003. The increase in “General and administrative expenses” was primarily attributable to increased personnel and infrastructure expenses to support the growth of the DISH Network. “General and administrative expenses” represented 5.6% and 5.8% of “Total revenue” during the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The decrease in this expense to revenue ratio resulted primarily from “Total revenue” increasing at a higher rate than our “General and administrative expenses.”

42

Non-cash, stock-based compensation. During 1999, we adopted an incentive plan under our 1995 Stock Incentive Plan, which provided certain key employees with incentives including stock options. During the year ended December 31, 2004, we recognized $1.2 million of compensation under this performance-based plan, a decrease of $2.4 million compared to the same period in 2003. All deferred compensation remaining as of December 31, 2003 was recognized during the quarter ending on March 31, 2004.

As discussed under “Critical Accounting Estimates” below, in December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), “Share Based Payment” (“SFAS 123®”) which is effective for financial statements as of the beginning of the first interim period that begins after June 15, 2005. We are currently evaluating which transitional provision and fair value methodology we will follow. However, we expect that any expense associated with the adoption of the provisions of SFAS 123® will have a material negative impact on our results of operations.

Depreciation and amortization. “Depreciation and amortization” expense totaled $502.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $104.7 million or 26.3% compared to the same period in 2003. The increase in “Depreciation and amortization” expense primarily resulted from additional depreciation related to the commencement of commercial operation of our EchoStar IX satellite in October 2003, and increases in depreciation related to equipment leased to customers and other depreciable assets, including finite lived intangible assets, placed in service during 2003 and 2004. As of December 31, 2003, EchoStar IV was fully depreciated and accordingly, we recorded no expense for this satellite during the year ended December 31, 2004. This partially offset the increase in depreciation expense discussed above.

Interest income. “Interest income” totaled $42.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2004, a decrease of $22.8 million or 35.0%compared to the same period in 2003. This decrease principally resulted from lower cash and marketable investment securities balances in 2004 as compared to 2003, partially offset by higher total returns earned on our cash and marketable investment securities during 2004.

Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized. “Interest expense” totaled $505.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2004, a decrease of $46.8 million or 8.5% compared to the same period in 2003. This decrease primarily resulted from a net reduction in interest expense of approximately $98.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 related to the debt redemptions and repurchases of our previously outstanding senior debt during 2003 and 2004. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in prepayment premiums and the write-off of debt issuance costs totaling approximately $134.7 million in 2004 compared to approximately $97.1 million in 2003. See Note 4 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Other. “Other” expense totaled $13.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to “Other” income of $18.8 million during 2003. The decrease is primarily attributable to net losses on the sale of securities from our marketable investments portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2004 as compared to net gains during 2003.

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. EBITDA was $1.193 billion during the year ended December 31, 2004, an increase of $68.2 million or 6.1% compared to $1.125 billion during the same period in 2003. EBITDA during the year ended December 31, 2003 included a benefit of approximately $77.2 million related to the change in estimated royalty obligations and litigation settlement discussed above. Absent this 2003 benefit, our increase in EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2004 would have been $145.4 million. The increase in EBITDA (excluding this benefit) was primarily attributable to the changes in operating revenues and expenses discussed above. EBITDA does not include the impact of capital expenditures under our new and existing subscriber equipment lease programs of approximately $654.9 million and $118.6 million during the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

The following table reconciles EBITDA to the accompanying financial statements:

43

EBITDA is not a measure determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or GAAP, and should not be considered a substitute for operating income, net income or any other measure determined in accordance with GAAP. EBITDA is used as a measurement of operating efficiency and overall financial performance and we believe it to be a helpful measure for those evaluating companies in the multi-channel video programming distribution industry. Conceptually, EBITDA measures the amount of income generated each period that could be used to service debt, pay taxes and fund capital expenditures. EBITDA should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Income tax benefit (provision), net. Our income tax policy is to record the estimated future tax effects of temporary differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities and amounts reported in our accompanying consolidated balance sheets, as well as operating loss, tax credit and other carry-forwards. We follow the guidelines set forth in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes” (“SFAS 109”) regarding the recoverability of any tax assets recorded on the balance sheet and provide any necessary valuation allowances as required. Determining necessary valuation allowances requires us to make assessments about the timing of future events, including the probability of expected future taxable income and available tax planning opportunities. We currently have an approximate $1.0 billion valuation allowance recorded as an offset against all of our net deferred tax assets. In accordance with SFAS 109, we periodically evaluate our need for a valuation allowance based on historical evidence, including trends, and future expectations in each reporting period. In the future, at such time as is required by SFAS 109, all or a portion of the current valuation allowance may be reversed. We recognized “Net income” for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, and accordingly, now believe that if this trend continues it is more likely than not we will reverse our current recorded valuation allowance in the near term which will have a material positive impact on our “Net income (loss).” However, there can be no assurance if or when all or a portion of our valuation allowance will be reversed.

Net income (loss). “Net income” was $214.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2004, a decrease of $9.7 million or 4.3% compared to $224.5 million for the same period in 2003. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower “Operating income,” “Interest income” and “Other income” partially offset by the decrease in “Interest expense” resulting from the factors discussed above.

44

Year Ended December 31, 2003 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2002.

45

DISH Network subscribers. As of December 31, 2003, we had approximately 9.425 million DISH Network subscribers compared to approximately 8.180 million at December 31, 2002, an increase of approximately 15.2%. DISH Network added approximately 1.245 million net new subscribers for the year ended December 31, 2003 compared to approximately 1.350 million net new subscribers during the same period in 2002. We believe the reduction in net new subscribers for the year ended December 31, 2003, compared to the same period in 2002, resulted from a number of factors, including stronger competition from advanced digital cable and cable modems. Additionally, as the size of our subscriber base continues to increase, even if percentage churn remains constant, increasing numbers of gross new subscribers are required to sustain net subscriber growth.

Subscriber additions during the second half of 2003 were negatively impacted by delays in the delivery of several newly developed products, which resulted in a temporary product shortage, and product installations in the third and fourth quarter of 2003. These delays were substantially eliminated during the first quarter of 2004.

Subscriber-related revenue. DISH Network “Subscriber-related revenue” totaled $5.410 billion for the year ended December 31, 2003, an increase of $980.2 million or 22.1% compared to the same period in 2002. This increase was directly attributable to continued DISH Network subscriber growth and the increase in “ARPU” discussed below.

ARPU. Monthly average revenue per subscriber was approximately $51.21 during the year ended December 31, 2003 and approximately $49.37 during the same period in 2002. The $1.84 or 3.7% increase in monthly average revenue per subscriber is primarily attributable to price increases of up to $2.00 in February 2003 on some of our most popular packages, the increased availability of local channels by satellite and an increase in the number of DISH Network subscribers with multiple set-top boxes. During 2003, we launched 47 additional local markets compared to the launch of 18 additional markets during 2002. These increases were partially offset by certain subscriber promotions, under which new DISH Network subscribers received free programming for the first three months of their term of service, and other promotions under which DISH Network subscribers received discounted programming.

Equipment sales. For the year ended December 31, 2003, “Equipment sales” totaled $295.4 million, a decrease of $53.2 million or 15.3% compared to the same period during 2002. The decrease in “Equipment sales” principally resulted from a decline in the number of digital set-top boxes and related components sold by our ETC subsidiary to an international DBS service provider.

Subscriber-related expenses. “Subscriber-related expenses” totaled $2.708 billion during the year ended December 31, 2003, an increase of $507.7 million or 23.1% compared to the same period in 2002. The increase in “Subscriber-related expenses” was primarily attributable to the increase in the number of DISH Network subscribers. This growth resulted in increased expenses to support the DISH Network, including programming costs, personnel expenses, the opening of a new call center, and increased operating expenses related to the expansion of our DISH Network Service L.L.C. business. “Subscriber-related expenses” represented 50.1% and 49.7% of “Subscriber-related revenue” during the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The increase in “Subscriber-related expenses” as a percentage of “Subscriber-related revenue” primarily resulted from an approximately $30.2 million reversal of an accrual during 2002 related to the replacement of smart cards in satellite receivers owned by us and leased to consumers. This accrual reversal decreased the 2002 expense to revenue ratio from 50.4% to 49.7%. The increase in the expense to revenue ratio from 2002 to 2003 was partially offset by an increase in monthly average revenue per subscriber and increased operating efficiencies.

Satellite and transmission expenses. “Satellite and transmission expenses” totaled $79.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2003, an increase of $17.2 million or 27.7% compared to the same period in 2002. This increase primarily resulted from commencement of service and operational costs associated with the increasing number of markets in which we offer local network channels by satellite as previously discussed. “Satellite and transmission expenses” totaled 1.5% and 1.4% of “Subscriber-related revenue” during each of the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

Cost of sales – equipment. “Cost of sales – equipment” totaled $194.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2003, a decrease of $33.2 million or 14.6% compared to the same period in 2002. This decrease related primarily to a decrease in sales of digital set-top boxes and related components by our ETC subsidiary to an international DBS service provider. “Cost of sales – equipment” during the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 include non-recurring

46