In July 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 146, “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities” (“FAS 146”), which will require companies to record exit, including restructuring, or disposal costs when they are incurred and can be measured at fair value, and subsequently adjust the recorded liability for changes in estimated cash flows. FAS 146 also provides specific guidance on accounting for employee and contract terminations that are part of restructuring activities. The new requirements in FAS 146 are effective prospectively for exit or disposal activities initiated after December 31, 2002. EchoStar is currently evaluating the potential impact, if any, the adoption of FAS 146 will have on its financial position and results of operations.

3. Marketable Investment Securities

     The Company currently classifies all marketable investment securities as available-for-sale. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the Company adjusts the carrying value of its available-for-sale marketable investment securities to fair market value and reports the related temporary unrealized gains and losses as a separate component of stockholder’s deficit, net of related deferred income tax, if applicable. Declines in the fair market value of a marketable investment security which are estimated to be “other than temporary” must be recognized in the statement of operations, thus establishing a new cost basis for such investment. The Company evaluates its marketable investment securities portfolio on a quarterly basis to determine whether declines in the market value of these securities are other than temporary. This quarterly evaluation consists of reviewing, among other things, the fair value of the Company’s marketable investment securities compared to the carrying value of these securities, the historical volatility of the price of each security and any market and company specific factors related to each security. Generally, absent specific factors to the contrary, declines in the fair value of investments below cost basis for a period of less than six months are considered to be temporary. Declines in the fair value of investments for a period of six to nine months are evaluated on a case by case basis to determine whether any company or market-specific factors exist which would indicate that such declines are other than temporary. Declines in the fair value of investments below cost basis for greater than nine months are considered other than temporary and are recorded as charges to earnings, absent specific factors to the contrary.

     As of September 30, 2002, the Company recorded unrealized losses of approximately $306 thousand as a separate component of stockholder’s deficit. During the nine months ended September 30, 2002, the Company also recorded an aggregate charge to earnings for other than temporary declines in the fair market value of certain of its marketable investment securities of approximately $2 million, and established a new cost basis for these securities. If the fair market value of the Company’s marketable securities portfolio does not increase to cost basis or if the Company becomes aware of any market or company specific factors that indicate that the carrying value of certain of its securities is impaired, the Company may be required to record additional charges to earnings in future periods equal to the amount of the decline in fair value.

7

Table of Contents

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

4. Inventories

     Inventories consist of the following (in thousands):

5. Property and Equipment

EchoStar V

     During 2000 and 2001, EchoStar V experienced anomalies resulting in the loss of two solar array strings and during August 2002, EchoStar V experienced anomalies resulting in the loss of an additional solar array string. The satellite has a total of approximately 96 solar array strings and approximately 92 are required to assure full power availability for the 12-year design life of the satellite. An investigation of the solar array anomalies, none of which have impacted commercial operation of the satellite, is continuing. Until the root cause of these anomalies is finally determined, there can be no assurance future anomalies will not cause further losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite.

EchoStar VI

     During 2001, EchoStar VI experienced anomalies resulting in the loss of two solar array strings and during July 2002, EchoStar VI experienced anomalies resulting in the loss of an additional solar array string. The satellite has a total of approximately 112 solar array strings and approximately 106 are required to assure full power availability for the 12-year design life of the satellite. An investigation of the solar array anomalies, none of which have impacted commercial operation of the satellite, is continuing. Until the root cause of these anomalies is finally determined, there can be no assurance future anomalies will not cause further losses which could impact commercial operation of the satellite.

EchoStar VIII

     During October 2002, EchoStar VIII, which launched successfully on August 21, 2002 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, reached its final orbital location at 110 degrees West Longitude and commenced commercial operation after completing in-orbit testing.

     During September and October 2002 two of the thrusters on EchoStar VIII experienced anomalous events and are not currently in use. The satellite is equipped with a total of 12 thrusters that help control attitude and pointing. An investigation of the thruster anomalies, none of which have impacted commercial operation of the satellite to date, is continuing. The satellite can operate using a combination of the other 10 thrusters. 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.

8

Table of Contents

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

Satellite Insurance

     As a result of the failure of EchoStar IV solar arrays to fully deploy and the failure of 38 transponders to date, a maximum of 6 of the 44 transponders on EchoStar IV are available for use at this time. In addition to the transponder and solar array failures, EchoStar IV experienced anomalies affecting its thermal systems and propulsion system. There can be no assurance that further material degradation, or total loss of use, of EchoStar IV will not occur in the immediate future. Currently no programming is being transmitted to customers on EchoStar IV, and the satellite functions as an in-orbit spare.

     In September 1998, EchoStar filed a $219.3 million insurance claim for a constructive total loss under the launch insurance policies covering EchoStar IV. The satellite insurance consists of separate substantially identical policies with different carriers for varying amounts that, in combination, create a total insured amount of $219.3 million. The insurance carriers include La Reunion Spatiale; AXA Reinsurance Company (n/k/a AXA Corporate Solutions Reinsurance Company), United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., United States Aircraft Insurance Group; Assurances Generales De France I.A.R.T. (AGF); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London; Great Lakes Reinsurance (U.K.) PLC; British Aviation Insurance Group; If Skaadeforsikring (previously Storebrand); Hannover Re (a/k/a International Hannover); The Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd.; Marham Space Consortium (a/k/a Marham Consortium Management); Ace Global Markets (a/k/a Ace London); M.C. Watkins Syndicate; Goshawk Syndicate Management Ltd.; D.E. Hope Syndicate 10009 (Formerly Busbridge); Amlin Aviation; K.J. Coles & Others; H.R. Dumas & Others; Hiscox Syndicates, Ltd.; Cox Syndicate; Hayward Syndicate; D.J. Marshall & Others; TF Hart; Kiln; Assitalia Le Assicurazioni D’Italia S.P.A. Roma; La Fondiaria Assicurazione S.P.A., Firenze; Vittoria Assicurazioni S.P.A., Milano; Ras — Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta S.P.A., Milano; Societa Cattolica Di Assicurazioni, Verano; Siat Assicurazione E Riassicurazione S.P.A, Genova; E. Patrick; ZC Specialty Insurance; Lloyds of London Syndicates 588 NJM, 1209 Meb AND 861 Meb; Generali France Assurances; Assurance France Aviation; and Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd.

     The insurance carriers offered EchoStar a total of approximately $88 million, or 40% of the total policy amount, in settlement of the EchoStar IV insurance claim. The insurers assert that EchoStar IV was not a constructive total loss, as that term is defined in the policy, and that EchoStar did not abide by the exact terms of the insurance policies. EchoStar strongly disagrees and filed arbitration claims against the insurers for breach of contract, failure to pay a valid insurance claim and bad faith denial of a valid claim, among other things. There can be no assurance that EchoStar will receive the amount claimed or, if EchoStar does, that EchoStar will retain title to EchoStar IV with its reduced capacity. While there can be no assurance, the arbitration is expected to occur during 2003.

     At the time EchoStar filed its claim in 1998, EchoStar recognized an impairment loss of $106 million to write-down the carrying value of the satellite and related costs, and simultaneously recorded an insurance claim receivable for the same amount. EchoStar will have to reduce the amount of the receivable if a final settlement is reached for less than this amount.

     As a result of the thermal and propulsion system anomalies, EchoStar reduced the estimated remaining useful life of EchoStar IV to approximately 4 years during January 2000. EchoStar will continue to evaluate the performance of EchoStar IV and may modify its loss assessment as new events or circumstances develop.

     The indentures related to certain of EchoStar DBS Corporation’s (“EDBS”) senior notes contain restrictive covenants that require EchoStar to maintain satellite insurance with respect to at least half of the satellites it owns or leases. In addition, the indenture related to EchoStar Broadband Corporation’s (“EBC”) senior notes requires EchoStar to maintain satellite insurance on the lesser of half of its satellites or three of its satellites. All of EchoStar’s eight in-orbit DBS satellites are currently owned by direct or indirect subsidiaries of EDBS. Insurance coverage is therefore required for at least four of EchoStar’s eight satellites. The launch and/or in-orbit insurance policies for EchoStar I through EchoStar VII have expired. EchoStar has been unable to obtain insurance on any of these satellites on terms acceptable to EchoStar. As a result, EchoStar is currently self-insuring these satellites. To satisfy insurance covenants related to EDBS’ and EBC’s senior notes, EchoStar has reclassified an amount equal to the depreciated cost of four of

9

Table of Contents

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

its satellites from cash and cash equivalents to cash reserved for satellite insurance on its balance sheet. As of September 30, 2002, cash reserved for satellite insurance totaled approximately $159 million. The reclassifications will continue until such time, if ever, as EchoStar can again insure its satellites on acceptable terms and for acceptable amounts, or until the covenants requiring the insurance are no longer applicable.

6. Commitments and Contingencies

Fee Dispute

     EchoStar had a dispute regarding the contingent fee arrangement with the attorneys who represented EchoStar in prior litigation with The News Corporation, Ltd. In early July 2002, the parties resolved their dispute.

WIC Premium Television Ltd

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

     During September 1998, WIC filed another lawsuit in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Edmonton against certain defendants, including EchoStar. WIC is a company authorized to broadcast certain copyrighted work, such as movies and concerts, to residents of Canada. WIC alleges that the defendants engaged in, promoted, and/or allowed satellite dish equipment from the United States to be sold in Canada and to Canadian residents and that some of the defendants allowed and profited from Canadian residents purchasing and viewing subscription television programming that is only authorized for viewing in the United States. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, interim and permanent injunctions prohibiting the defendants from importing satellite receivers into Canada and from activating satellite receivers located in Canada to receive programming, together with damages in excess of $175 million.

     The Court in the Alberta action denied EchoStar’s Motion to Dismiss, and EchoStar’s appeal of that decision. The Federal action has been stayed pending the outcome of the Alberta action. The case is now in discovery. EchoStar intends to continue to vigorously defend the suit. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the receipt in Canada of programming from United States pay television providers is prohibited. While EchoStar was not a party to that case, the ruling could aversely affect EchoStar’s defense. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Distant Network Litigation

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

     In October 1998, EchoStar filed a declaratory judgment action against ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. EchoStar asked the Court to enter judgment declaring that its method of providing distant network programming did not violate the Satellite Home Viewer Act and hence did not infringe the networks’ copyrights. In November 1998, the networks and their affiliate groups filed a complaint against EchoStar in Miami Federal Court alleging, among other things, copyright infringement. The Court combined the case that EchoStar filed in Colorado with the case in Miami and transferred it to the Miami Federal Court. The case remains pending in Florida. While the networks have not sought monetary damages, they have sought to recover attorney fees if they prevail.

10

Table of Contents

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

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

     In December 1998, the networks filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Echostar in the Florida case and asked the Court to enjoin EchoStar from providing network programming except under limited circumstances. A preliminary injunction hearing was held during September 1999. In March 2000, the networks filed an emergency motion again asking the Court to issue an injunction requiring EchoStar to cease providing network programming to certain of its customers. At that time, the networks also argued that EchoStar’s compliance procedures violated the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. EchoStar opposed the networks’ motion and again asked the Court to hear live testimony before ruling upon the networks’ injunction request.

     During September 2000, the Court granted the networks’ motion for preliminary injunction, denied the networks’ emergency motion, and denied EchoStar’s request to present live testimony and evidence. The Court’s original order required EchoStar to terminate network programming to certain subscribers “no later than February 15, 1999,” and contained other dates with which it would be physically impossible to comply. The order imposed restrictions on EchoStar’s past and future sale of distant ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX channels similar to those imposed on PrimeTime 24 (and, EchoStar believes, on DIRECTV and others). Some of those restrictions go beyond the statutory requirements imposed by the Satellite Home Viewer Act and the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act.

     Twice during October 2000, the Court amended its original preliminary injunction order in an effort to fix some of the errors in the original order. The twice amended preliminary injunction order required EchoStar to shut off, by February 15, 2001, all subscribers who were ineligible to receive distant network programming under the Court’s order. EchoStar appealed the preliminary injunction orders. During September 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the District Court’s nationwide preliminary injunction, which the Eleventh Circuit had stayed in November 2000. The Eleventh Circuit also rejected EchoStar’s First Amendment challenge to the Satellite Home Viewer Act. However, the Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court had made factual findings that were clearly erroneous and not supported by the evidence, and that the District Court had misinterpreted and misapplied the law. The Eleventh Circuit issued an order during January 2002, remanding the case to the Florida District Court. During March 2002, the Florida District Court entered an order setting the trial in the matter for January 13, 2003 and setting a discovery and pretrial schedule. In this order, the District Court denied certain of EchoStar’s outstanding motions to compel discovery as moot and granted the networks’ motion to compel. The trial date has now been moved to February 10, 2003. During April 2002, the District Court denied the networks’ motion for preliminary injunction as moot. In June 2002, EchoStar filed a counterclaim against the networks asking the District Court to find that EchoStar is not violating the Satellite Home Viewer Act and seeking damages resulting from the networks’ tortious interference with EchoStar’s business relationships and from the networks’ conduct amounting to unfair competition. The networks filed a motion to dismiss these claims. In August 2002, the District Court denied the networks’ motion to dismiss. In September 2002, the networks answered our counterclaim.

     In April 2002, EchoStar reached a private settlement with ABC, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in the litigation and jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal. On April 16, 2002, the District Court entered an order dismissing the claims between ABC, Inc. and EchoStar.

     If after a trial the District Court enters an injunction against EchoStar, the injunction could force EchoStar to terminate delivery of distant network channels to a substantial portion of its distant network subscriber base, which could also cause many of these subscribers to cancel their subscription to EchoStar’s other programming services. Any such terminations would result in a small reduction in EchoStar’s reported average monthly revenue per subscriber and could result in a temporary increase in churn. If EchoStar loses the case at trial, the judge could, as one of many

11

Table of Contents

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

possible remedies, prohibit all future sales of distant network programming by EchoStar, which would have a material adverse affect on its business.

Gemstar

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

     In December 2000, EchoStar filed suit against Gemstar-TV Guide (and certain of its subsidiaries) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging violations by Gemstar of various federal and state anti-trust laws and laws governing unfair competition. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and monetary damages. Gemstar filed counterclaims alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,923,362 and 5,684,525 that relate to certain electronic program guide functions. EchoStar examined these patents and believe they are not infringed by any of its products or services. In August 2001, the Federal Multi-District Litigation panel combined this suit, for pre-trial purposes, with other lawsuits asserting antitrust claims against Gemstar, which had previously been filed by other parties. In January 2002, Gemstar dropped the counterclaims of patent infringement. During March 2002, the Court denied Gemstar’s Motion to Dismiss EchoStar’s antitrust claims, however a recently filed motion for summary judgment based generally on lack of standing, remains pending. In its answer, Gemstar asserted new patent infringement counterclaims regarding United States Patent Nos. 4,908,713 and 5,915,068 (which is expired). These patents relate to onscreen programming of VCRs. EchoStar has examined these patents and believes that they are not infringed by any of its products or services.

     In February 2001, Gemstar filed patent infringement actions against EchoStar in the District Court in Atlanta, Georgia and with the ITC. These suits allege infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,252,066, 5,479,268 and 5,809,204 all of which relate to certain electronic program guide functions. In addition, the ITC action alleges infringement of the `121 Patent which is asserted in the North Carolina case previously discussed. In the Georgia district court case, Gemstar seeks damages and an injunction. The Georgia case was stayed pending resolution of the ITC action and remains stayed at this time. ITC actions typically proceed according to an expedited schedule. In December 2001, the ITC held a 15-day hearing before an administrative judge. Prior to the hearing, Gemstar dropped its allegations regarding United States Patent No. 5,252,066 with respect to which EchoStar had asserted substantial allegations of inequitable conduct. The hearing addressed, among other things, Gemstar’s allegations of patent infringement and respondents’ (SCI, Scientific Atlanta, Pioneer and EchoStar) allegations of patent misuse. During June 2002, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Initial Determination finding that none of the patents asserted by Gemstar had been infringed. In addition, the Judge found that Gemstar was guilty of patent misuse with respect to the `121 Patent and that the `121 Patent was unenforceable because it failed to name an inventor. The parties then filed petitions for the full ITC to review the Judge’s Final Initial Determination. On August 29, 2002, the full ITC adopted the Judge’s findings regarding non-infringement and the unenforceability of the `121 Patent. The ITC did not adopt, but did not overturn, the Judge’s findings of patent misuse. Gemstar has indicated that it plans to appeal the decision of the ITC to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the Federal Circuit were to overturn the Judge’s decision, such an adverse decision in this case could temporarily halt the import of EchoStar receivers and could require EchoStar to materially modify certain user-friendly electronic programming guides and related features it currently offer to consumers. Based upon EchoStar’s review of these patents, and based upon the ITC’s decision, EchoStar continues to believe that these patents are not infringed by any of its products or services. EchoStar intends to continue to vigorously contest the ITC, North Carolina and Georgia suits and will, among other things, continue to challenge both the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents.

12

Table of Contents

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

     During 2000, Superguide Corp. (“Superguide”) also filed suit against EchoStar, DIRECTV and others in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,038,211, 5,293,357 and 4,751,578 which relate to certain electronic program guide functions, including the use of electronic program guides to control VCRs. Superguide sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages in an unspecified amount. It is EchoStar’s understanding that these patents may be licensed by Superguide to Gemstar. Gemstar was added as a party to this case and asserted these patents against EchoStar. EchoStar has examined these patents and believes that they are not infringed by any of its products or services. A Markman ruling interpreting the patent claims was issued by the Court and in response to that ruling EchoStar filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement for each of the asserted patents. Gemstar filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement with respect to one of the patents. On July 3, 2002, the Court issued a Memorandum of Opinion on the summary judgment motions. In its Opinion, the Court ruled that none of EchoStar’s products infringe the 5,038,211 and 5,293,357 patents. With respect to the 4,751,578 patent, the Court ruled that none of EchoStar’s current products infringed that patent and asked for additional information before it could rule on certain low-volume products that are no longer in production. On July 26, 2002, the Court summarily ruled that the aforementioned low-volume products did not infringe any of the asserted patents. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case and awarded EchoStar its court costs. Superguide and Gemstar are appealing this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. EchoStar will continue to vigorously defend this case. In the event the Federal Circuit ultimately determines that EchoStar infringes on any of the aforementioned patents, EchoStar may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require EchoStar to materially modify certain user-friendly electronic programming guide and related features that EchoStar currently offers to consumers. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the suits.

IPPV Enterprises

     IPPV Enterprises, LLC (“IPPV”) and MAAST, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against EchoStar, and our conditional access vendor Nagra, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The suit alleged infringement of five patents. One patent claim was subsequently dropped by plaintiffs. Three of the remaining patents disclose various systems for the implementation of features such as impulse-pay-per-view, parental control and category lock-out. The fourth remaining patent relates to an encryption technique. The Court entered summary judgment in our favor on the encryption patent. Plaintiffs had claimed $80 million in damages with respect to the encryption patent. On July 13, 2001, a jury found that the remaining three patents were infringed and awarded damages of $15 million. The jury also found that one of the patents was willfully infringed, permitting the Judge to increase the award of damages. On post-trial motions, the Judge reduced damages to $7.33 million, found that one of the infringed patents was invalid, and reversed the finding of willful infringement. In addition, the Judge denied IPPV’s request for treble damages and attorney fees. EchoStar intends to file an appeal. Any final award of damages would be split between EchoStar and Nagra in percentages to be agreed upon between EchoStar and Nagra.

California Actions

     A purported class action was filed against EchoStar in the California State Superior Court for Alameda County during May 2001 by Andrew A. Werby. The complaint, relating to late fees, alleges unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., false and misleading advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. During September 2001, EchoStar filed an answer denying all material allegations of the complaint, and the Court entered an Order Pursuant to Stipulation for a provisional certification of the class, for an orderly exchange of information and for mediation. The provisional Order specifies that the class will be de-certified upon notice if mediation does not resolve the dispute. A settlement has been reached with plaintiff’s counsel and the Court issued its preliminary approval of the settlement on October 18, 2002. The Court has set a March 7, 2003 date for hearing on final approval after notice to the class. If the settlement is not approved, EchoStar intends to deny all liability and to vigorously defend the lawsuit. The settlement confirms that the late fee charged by EchoStar is appropriate and will not change.

13

Table of Contents

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

     A purported class action relating to the use of terms such as “crystal clear digital video,” “CD-quality audio,” and “on-screen program guide,” and with respect to the number of channels available in various programming packages was also filed against EchoStar in the California State Superior Court for Los Angeles County in 1999 by David Pritikin and by Consumer Advocates, a nonprofit unincorporated association. The complaint alleges breach of express warranty and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., and the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 & 17200. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and EchoStar’s Motion for Summary Judgment was held on June 28, 2002. At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling denying the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. However, before issuing a final ruling on Class Certification, the Court granted EchoStar’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s grant of EchoStar’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the appeal or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

State Investigation

     During April 2002, two state Attorneys General commenced a civil investigation concerning certain of EchoStar’s business practices. Over the course of the next six months, 11 additional states ultimately joined the investigation. The states allege failure to comply with consumer protection laws based on EchoStar’s call response times and policies, advertising and customer agreement disclosures, policies for handling consumer complaints, issuing rebates and refunds and charging cancellation fees to consumers, and other matters. EchoStar has cooperated fully in the investigation. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome, or to determine the extent of any damages or injunctive relief which could result.

Retailer Class Actions

     EchoStar has been sued by retailers in three separate purported class actions. During October 2000, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Arapahoe County District Court in the State of Colorado and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, respectively, by Air Communication & Satellite, Inc. and John DeJong, et al. on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated. The plaintiffs are attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of EchoStar’s satellite hardware retailers. The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between EchoStar and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other compensation. EchoStar intends to vigorously defend against the suits and to assert 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. 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. A class certification hearing for the Arapahoe County Court action is scheduled for November 26, 2002.

     Satellite Dealers Supply, Inc. filed a lawsuit 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 is attempting to certify a nationwide class on behalf of sellers, installers, and servicers of satellite equipment who contract with EchoStar and who allege that EchoStar: (1) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class to professional installers in violation of contractual terms; (2) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny payments to class members; and (3) misrepresented, to class members, who owns certain equipment related to the provision of satellite television service. During September 2001, the Court granted EchoStar’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing the case and the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. It is too early to make an assessment of the probable outcome of the appeal or to determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

14

Table of Contents

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

StarBand Shareholder Lawsuit

     On August 20, 2002, a shareholder in StarBand Communications Corporation (“StarBand”) filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against EchoStar and EchoBand Corporation, together with four EchoStar executives who sat on the Board of Directors for StarBand, for alleged breach of the fiduciary duties of due care, good faith and loyalty, and also against EchoStar and EchoBand Corporation for aiding and abetting such alleged breaches. Two of the individual defendants, Charles W. Ergen and David Moskowitz, are members of the Board of Directors of EchoStar. The action stems from the defendants’ involvement as directors, and EchoBand’s position as a shareholder in StarBand, a broadband Internet satellite venture that is currently in bankruptcy. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to ensure StarBand’s failure in order to guarantee that EchoStar’s pending merger with Hughes would be successful. Plaintiffs seek an accounting of damages for their $25 million investment in StarBand in addition to costs and disbursements. Defendants deny the allegations in the complaint and intend to defend the litigation vigorously. On October 28, 2002, EchoStar, along with the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. EchoStar and EchoBand filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. 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.

PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture

     PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (“PrimeTime 24”) filed suit against EchoStar during September 1998 seeking damages in excess of $10 million and alleging breach of contract, wrongful termination of contract, interference with contractual relations, trademark infringement and unfair competition. EchoStar denied all of PrimeTime 24’s allegations and asserted various counterclaims. EchoStar has reached a settlement agreement with PrimeTime 24 pursuant to which the parties agreed to release all parties from any liability and dismiss the case with prejudice. The settlement amount is immaterial to EchoStar.

Merger Related Proceedings

     A purported shareholder derivative action was filed against EchoStar and all of the current members of its Board of Directors in the United States District Court for Clark County, Nevada during October 2002 by Robert Busch on behalf of EchoStar shareholders. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and other unlawful acts relating to EchoStar’s agreement to pay Hughes Electronics Corporation a $600 million termination fee in certain circumstances in the event the merger with DirecTV is not completed by January 21, 2003. No answer is due yet from the defendants. EchoStar and the individual defendants intend to deny all liability and to defend this action vigorously. 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.

     The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of those actions will not materially affect the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

15

Table of Contents

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

7. Depreciation and Amortization Expense

     Depreciation and amortization expense consists of the following (in thousands):

     Cost of sales and operating expense categories included in the Company’s accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations do not include depreciation expense related to satellites or digital home plan equipment.

8. Segment Reporting

Financial Data by Business Unit (in thousands)

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

16

Table of Contents

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

9. Financial Information for Subsidiary Guarantors

     With the exception of certain de minimis domestic and foreign subsidiaries (collectively, the “Non-Guarantors”), the 9 1/4% Seven Year Notes and 9 3/8% Ten Year Notes are fully, unconditionally and jointly and severally guaranteed by all subsidiaries of EDBS (collectively, the “Subsidiary Guarantors”).

     The combined assets, stockholder’s equity, net loss and operating cash flows of the Non-Guarantors represent less than 1% of the combined and consolidated assets, stockholder’s equity, net loss and operating cash flows of the combined Subsidiary Guarantors for the nine months ended September 30, 2001 and 2002. As a result, the Subsidiary Guarantors and Non-Guarantors are combined in the following tables. Consolidating financial information is presented for the following entities (in thousands):

17

Table of Contents

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

Consolidating Balance Sheets — As of December 31, 2001