Direct-to-Cell NTN Systems in Terrestrial 5G Bands: Network-Level Sensitivity Analysis and PFD/EPFD Limits for Coexistence

Abstract

Direct-to-cell (D2C) non-terrestrial networks (NTNs) based on 5G technology are emerging as a key complement to terrestrial cellular networks, extending connectivity to underserved and remote areas while enabling integration with existing mobile ecosystems. As these systems begin operating in frequency bands already used by terrestrial International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) networks, coexistence becomes critical. This paper presents a victim-centric methodology for evaluating D2C interference into terrestrial 5G networks in the 694/698 MHz-2.7 GHz regulatory study range. Seven downlink carrier cases and four uplink carrier cases between 734 and 2620 MHz are evaluated. For a prescribed external interference-to-noise ratio, the external contribution is referenced to receiver thermal noise, while terrestrial intra-network interference remains part of the baseline and interfered signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR). The resulting throughput loss is translated into candidate power-flux-density (PFD) and equivalent-power-flux-density (EPFD) protection levels. A reference non-geostationary-satellite-orbit (NGSO) system is used only to motivate the assumed receiver-exposure fractions; the numerical network results are therefore conditional on those exposure assumptions. The same external interference level produces approximately three times greater network throughput loss at base stations than at user equipment, so direction-specific protection levels are required. For downlink protection, the tested 3 dB noise-rise case gives candidate PFD levels from −109.23 to −98.17 dB(W/(m2·MHz)); for opposite-direction cross-border uplink protection, I/N = −6 dB gives candidate EPFD levels from −138.23 to −130.18 dB(W/(m2·MHz)) for non-AAS base stations. The approximately 11 dB offset for AAS cases results from the maximum-gain normalization used in EPFD and should not be interpreted as evidence of greater satellite exposure. These values are tested candidate levels rather than estimates of an exact 5% crossing point.