| The
Zee Turner counsel said that there exist two specific Trai-issued documents that
could be placed in the court right away, or later, as the court thought fit, which
show that Trai regulations carry a "must carry" provision. The court
finally fixed 9 February as the date for filing those documents with a note from
the Zee counsel. Reading
out the affidavit to seek to prove his point, the Tata Sky counsel said that Trai
had made four points in the affidavit: first, that it was considering the issue
and consultative paper would be issued, without fixing a timeframe for that; secondly,
that the affidavit does say that there are capacity constraints on the transponders;
thirdly, that DTH is at par with the cable operations, being an addressable system;
and finally, that Trai says its regulations did have a "must provide",
but not a "must carry" provision. Tata
Sky's argument was that since the regulations did not enforce any "must carry"
provision, the DTH operator was not bound to carry all the channels provided as
package/s by a broadcaster.
To
this, however, the Zee counsel asserted that there were two earlier documents
by Trai that specifically assert a "must carry" provision, and these
could be produced in the court.
Part of the dispute between Tata Sky and Zee
Turner rests on the fact that the latter has been insisting that the DTH operator
carry all its channels and could not "pick and chose" from them. The
former had argued that the transponder constraint does not allow them to run each
and every channel from a broadcaster they take signals from. | 
