Abstract

Interference in Satellite / Wireless is always a concerning issue which is persistent in evolving

technologies especially in 5G communication and beyond. This report is basically providing a
survey of interference on Satellite / Wireless communication and mitigation keeping in view the
various aspects of communication. The survey will investigate the compatibility of 5G and future
technologies along with architecture and networking aspect, mobility / handover / topology
aspect, spectrum and standardization (3GPP). The survey report will also provide the detailed
analysis of interference management and techniques to increase the interference cancellation
performance.

Introduction
The advancement in wireless communication is causing the faster wireless data communication
and enhancement in wireless communication connectivity. The wireless technology along with
enhancement is facing the challenges of interference. Interference is gigantic challenge for
wireless communication which is the reason of disrupt quality signal and reduced network
performance. As we move towards 4G / 5G and beyond, the analysis, understanding and
mitigation of interference on wireless communication becomes complicated. The survey report is
basically based on different interference for wireless communication and mitigation strategies for
these interferences. Architecture and networking aspect, mobility / handover / topology aspect,
spectrum and standardization (3GPP) are also included along with the compatibility of 5G
communication and beyond technologies. Interference analysis and mitigation strategies will
provide the concept of seamless integration of 5G and beyond technologies.
Wireless technology has faced many architectural changes, from cellular network to more
complex topologies (Dense Urban Deployment, Remote areas and Industrial Areas). Thus, not
only architectural changing is creating challenges for interference management but network
mobility, handover and topology aspect also requires a robust mitigation technique for reliable
communication. Furthermore, radio spectrum is infinite and effective utilization along with
interference mitigation techniques will be discussed. Finally, the role of standardization bodies
like 3GPP for the development of standards that addresses interference will be discussed.

Literature Review
The big challenge has faced wireless technologies over the years from 2G to 3G, then 4G to 5G
and now beyond 5G is interference. Therefore, interference and mitigation techniques are the
research areas for survey report. The advancement of wireless technologies along with the
growth of data services in beyond 5th generation (B5G) and 6th generation (6G) networks has
achieved exponential growth. The mobile data is expected to increase from 7.462 EB/month in
2010 to 5016EB/month in 2030 [1]. The integration of millimeter waves (mm-waves) and
Terahertz waves has been introduced in B5G networks which is expanding the frequency bands
and spectral efficiency [2,3]. A solution for weak signal received by user at the cell edge like
small base station (SBS) can further increase the interference [4,5,6]. Therefore, efficient
interference management is required to reduce the retransmission and increase spectrum
utilization. The use of these frequency bands is full of challenge, including attenuation, fading,
reflection and interference from neighbouring devices. Therefore, comprehensive channel
modeling is necessary for further implementation. Interference in communication is a critical
issue for service provider because it diminishes the QoS and does effect on revenue streams
[7,8]. Therefore, interference is the most significant factor that influences capacity and the QoS
provided to end-users [9,10]. To reduce collisions and time wastage on retransmissions, the
system must be able to detect potential interferences in the spectrum and smartly utilize the
spectrum [11]. Interference is the most significant factor that influences the capacity and QoS
provided to end-users. Therefore, in the B5G network, it is essential to explore how interference
can be canceled using traditional interference cancellation techniques, such as successive
interference cancellation (SIC) and parallel interference cancellation (PIC), or key enabling
technologies such as M-MIMO, intelligent beamforming (IB), resource allocation (RA), etc.
[1,11].
Interference in wireless communication can be of many types including self-interference, inter-
user interference, adjacent channel interference and many more. This survey paper is exploring
the interference challenges and solutions within 5G and beyond networks with a focus on
HetNets, Device-to Device Communication (D2D) and Ultra-Dense Communication (UDNs).

An overview of 5G System
The system defined by 3GPP from Release 15 is known as the Fifth Generation of Mobile
Telephony, or 5G or 5GS. It was functionally frozen in June 2018 and fully specified by
September 2019. In addition to defining the air interface, 3GPP also specifies all the network
interfaces and protocols necessary for call and session control, mobility management, service
provisioning, and other features that make up the entire mobile system. This method enables
3GPP networks to function in an inter-operator and inter-vendor environment.
5G is broken down into phases. Release 15 outlines the first phase of 5G, which includes a new
radio transmission method and other important ideas like increased modularity, industry-grade
dependability, and quicker reaction times. Every generation prior to 5G was created with an
ever-expanding user base in mind.
The pathway towards 5th Generation
Since the 1980s, when mobile standards first emerged, there has been a roughly once-decade
generational progression, in which 3GPP has played a significant role. Every generation has
yielded systemic improvements, quantified in 3GPP Releases; the groups have just begun to
make headway toward Rel-18 specifications.
As the name implies, 3GPP began developing the third generation of mobile devices in 1998
utilizing methods and an evolutionary path that all areas could adopt. The world's convergence
towards the 3GPP specifications has facilitated remarkable market expansion and raised
confidence that the internet of everything, including broadband cellular, can rely on a reliable
and forward-thinking standardization platform.

From a variety of early-generation mobile systems, all operators currently provide 3GPP systems
with LTE (4G).
Architectures & Networking
Network Architecture for LEO-Based 5G-Satellite Integration
We start this section with a generic architecture to give you a general idea of converged satellite-
terrestrial networks. From there, we go through a few architectures that are appropriate for
innovations used in satellite-terrestrial networks, each of which has advantages and
disadvantages. Various architectures must be preferred based on their characteristics when
evaluating various challenges.
We first describe the two satellite network access modes across various operating spectrum
bands before going into the network architectures. As seen in Fig. 1, two frequency bands are
taken into consideration: a high-frequency band (above 6 GHz) and a C-band band (below 6
GHz), requiring distinct access terminals. Users can send low-data-rate direct transmissions to
the satellite using the C-band. On the other hand, user devices cannot support direct
communications over high-frequency bands, such as the Ka-band, and each user must connect to
the network using the TST as an AP. In both situations, the Earth Gateway Station (EGS) or
Base Station (BS), which are both connected to the core network, receive the data that the LEO
satellite has received.
A general network architecture is suggested for the 6 GHz scenario mentioned above, as seen in
below figure To support the uplink ground users, a large number of small cells and a macro BS
are deployed. Every small cell helps the macrocell to reduce the amount of traffic and is powered
by a wireless or wired connection. As a result, each user can use one of the following three cells
to access the network:
1. The TSC with very little backhaul capacity connected to the core network via multihop
backhaul links;
2. The macrocell with large backhaul capacity supported by fiber links from the macro BS
directly to the core network
3. The Ka-band transmission-supported large backhaul capacity LSC
We also use a similar heterogeneous architecture for the case below 6 GHz, with the exception
that users upload directly to the satellite at a low data rate and that TSTs are not present [8].
Important Technologies for Satellite Access Networks Based on LEO
The essential SAN technologies required to support the various services previously mentioned
are covered in this section. We anticipate long-term satellite communications deployment in
conjunction with existing terrestrial communications when designing the integrated network.
Therefore, in order to guarantee the smooth integration of such a heterogeneous network,
advanced technologies must be specifically designed for both terrestrial and satellite
communications. The following goes into detail about a number of techniques.

In this chapter, several diversity techniques are covered. A number of diversity strategies,
including Multipath Diversity, Spatial Diversity, Time Diversity,
Diversity
There are descriptions of antenna diversity, polarization diversity, and angle diversity. Every
variation technique has various subfields. Along with the appropriate diversity, those are also
introduced description of the technique. For instance, there are two branches of transmit
diversity, such as close-loop

both open-loop transmit diversity and transmit diversity.

a) Generic Architecture
Although there are differences among the satellite-terrestrial network architectures that are
currently being proposed, these architectures all have certain advantages. The goal of integrated
satellite-terrestrial communication systems is to enable heterogeneity networks to cooperate. One
of the primary forces behind the converged satellite-terrestrial network implementation strategy
is resources orchestration. Utilizing resources that are dispersed across spatial dimensions
typically results in higher performance since more infrastructures have the potential to offer
better function ability. In addition, since integrated network components have different
constraints, they should be chosen cooperatively to prevent redundant resources in the
communication process.
The general architecture of a fully integrated satellite-terrestrial network is shown in Figure 2.
We determine that the architecture's structure can be broken down into three layers: terrestrial,
airborne, and space networks.

FIGURE 7.
Generic architecture of satellite-terrestrial networks.
 b) Space Networks
Depending on their orbital altitude, GEO, MEO, and LEO satellites make up the three main
categories of satellites used in multi-layer space networks. LEO satellites operate at orbits
between 500 and 1500 km, MEO satellites operate at orbits between 10,000 and 20,000 km, and
GEO satellites operate at orbits of 36,000 km [91]. Satellite networks rely on wireless links,
either microwave or laser, for cooperative communication.
Various satellite constellations must take into account a variety of factors, including the kind of
service, the maximum transmission delay, the minimum elevation angle, and the requirements
for service quality and availability. Because GEO satellites have a large service area, they can
minimize handover times. Regretfully, services that depend on latency will not benefit from the
extended propagation latency.
LEO satellites are defined as having less propagation delay and free space attenuation than GEO
satellites. Low altitude, however, results in less coverage; more satellites would be required to
achieve worldwide service coverage. Large constellations typically require a more intricate
frequency reuse scheme. In addition, the greater speed of low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites results
in increased Doppler effects, which in turn causes frequent handovers that can result in signaling
overhead and transmission loss. As a compromise between GEO and LEO satellites, MEO
satellites are typically used for backhaul and trunk transmission services.
Overall, the space-based network has a dynamic topology. Links between various satellites in the
system are constantly being formed and retransmitted as they move. Luckily, the associated
topology is predictable and the orbit trajectories are deterministic. The space-based network's
communication resource is limited. The amount and quantity of satellite nodes limits the power,
cache, and processing capacity. The majority of satellite payloads are specially made and used
for specific missions.
c) Air-Based Networks
As communication nodes, air-based networks employ airships and high-altitude flying vehicles;
occasionally, stratosphere balloons and planes are also used in this layer. Air-based networks fall
into three categories based on the articles we looked through: low-altitude platform (LAP), high-
altitude platform (HAP), and near-space platform (NSP) networks.
Networks of near-space platforms: NSPs function at a height of 20–100 kilometers. Although the
platform is less expensive to implement, it resembles an artificial satellite. They are closer to the
ground and more adaptable when handling straightforward communication tasks. As a result,
weaker signals can still be picked up because they are closer to the receivers.
Networks of high-altitude platforms: High-altitude platforms, or HAPs, function at an altitude of
17–22 kilometers. They are used as flexible platforms, similar to near-space platforms, to
increase broadband wireless connectivity with powerful signals and low implementation costs.
Low-altitude platform networks: Low-altitude platforms, or LAPs, operate between 200 and 11
km above sea level. It could be UAVs carrying communication payloads or balloons. It typically
deploys in emergency situations to support public safety and ease the burden of the massive data
requirements in an eMBB scenario.
In air-based networks, platforms typically serve as both base stations and user equipment in
communication networks. The cellular networks' coverage and dependability can be improved by
base stations installed on these platforms. Air-based platforms are appropriate to provide access
because it is not cost-effective to deploy additional communication entities on the ground for
short-term events like festival parades or national sporting games. Platforms in air-based
networks are more adaptable and economical than satellites because they can change the altitude
for LoS transmission.
d) Terrestrial Networks
Because of the nature of hybrid and heterogeneous network structures, terrestrial networks are
the most complex and important component of the architecture. They are situated at the bottom
of the satellite-terrestrial network and bear enormous service requirements from multiple devices
and multiple domains. Networks on the ground that work with satellite networks typically consist
of wired or mobile communication networks, as well as traditional satellite ground stations that
have very small aperture terminals (VASTs) installed. Sensors, or Internet of Things (IoT) nodes,
are self-organizing networks that are typically placed in remote or rural areas to serve as
emergency alert monitoring systems.
These days, satellite networks act as backhaul networks and use gateways with very small
aperture terminals (VSATs) to offer users IP-based services. However, the different satellite and
terrestrial transports have historically used different and incompatible designs for multi-layer
communication functions, with the exception of these ground-based satellite terminals [106].
These days, terrestrial networks are undergoing radical transformation. Innovations dramatically
improve performance and the user experience [107]: For instance, new waveforms and
advancements in MIMO technology enable high data rates and spectral efficiency in the context
of enhanced mobile broadband. Terrestrial networks are made more flexible by Software
Defined Networking (SDN), Network Function Virtualization (NFV), Network Slicing, and
Cloud RAN. MEC pushes computing resources to the edge, so both latency and reliability can
make adoption to the URLLC's requirement. To address a family of applications, a new NR
structure for mMTC has already been proposed using subcarrier spacing, cyclic prefix, and
transmission time interval length.
Millions of Internet of Things (IoT) nodes that are connected to the network specifically request
that the network operator take latency, peak rates, and data traffic volume into account [109]. In
IoT networks, scalability is more crucial than transmission rate when compared to other services
like video conferences. In order to maintain spectrum efficiency, massive nodes in Internet of
Things networks must be suppressed in order for them to transmit information. Nodes should
wake up and finish packet transmission tasks as quickly as possible when they need to send data
to terrestrial or space networks. Then, they should go into sleep mode so that other nodes can use
the spectrum. Typically, mMTC terminals can be divided into three groups based on the needs of
the user: traffic aggregators, telemetry and tracking devices, and alarm devices [109]. Every
category has unique requirements. For example, alarm devices must have high reliability and low
latency for emergencies, while telemetry and tracking devices require scheduled transmissions
and are typically used for environmental monitoring. Additionally, traffic aggregators have
relatively high aggregated data rates because they are designed to aggregate traffic from low-end
sensors.
Generally speaking, satellite-terrestrial networks utilize all available communication resources
that are dispersed throughout space platforms, terrestrial networks, and satellite networks. The
design offers a convergent the 5G system is altering the transmission scheme and communication
ecosystem for the purpose of
The benefits include:
(i) Ubiquitous Access
(ii) Worldwide Connectivity
(iii) Significant Relief From Traffic Pressure
(iv) Intelligent Content Caching And Delivery
(v) Dependable And Prompt Emergency Response.

Leo access based on satellite

This section begins with an analysis of the features of the LEO satellite-based access patterns in
SAGIN. Next, we present the network advancements for improvement, such as the network
slicing techniques and hierarchical MEC.
Additionally, correlated use cases are offered to confirm the application of the matching
technique.

Difference between LEO, MEO and GEO

 Typical LEO Network Three-Segment Architecture.

Typically, a LEO satellite network is divided into three segments:

The Ground Segment comprises the Ground-Station (GS) infrastructure, which controls internal
parameters and acts as a control unit for the constellation of satellites;
The satellite constellation and the signals that travel from the satellite to the ground are included
in the space segment;
User Segment refers to any and all applications that the system serves (i.e., cellular networks,
PNT applications, transportation, UAV etc.) as well as to any LEO receiver.
This architecture's "big picture" is shown in above figure. The satellites in the sky make up the
space segment. These satellites can have either omnidirectional or directional (beamforming)
antennas in LEO constellations. This latter scenario, which is the most common in today's LEO
mega-constellations, is depicted in Figure 1 and allows each satellite beam to serve a single end
user. The primary responsibilities of the GSs, which are dispersed throughout the planet, are to
oversee, manage, and regulate the platforms and the signals transmitted by the satellites. The GS
satellite network is housed on the ground segment. Usually, the ground segment only
communicates with the space segment and does not engage with the user segment. Not to
mention, the user segment includes all user devices that have been equipped with a LEO-
supporting chipset. These devices can be used for a wide range of applications that require
sensing, navigation, and/or communication capabilities. These user devices' on-board LEO
chipsets may also facilitate integration with other chipsets, including Inertial Navigation Sensors
(INS), 5G, and Internet of Things chipsets. The primary use of the GS network in the context of
Earth Observation constellations is the download of sensor data. We will assume that this three-
segment architecture is applicable to all LEO networks in this paper.

B. SDN Based Satellite-Terrestrial Architecture

Traditional communication networks have physical resource limitations and a demanding
operating discipline.For example, infrastructures and their service functions are closely linked,
and network updates typically take too long to complete. It becomes more difficult to design an
effective and adaptable architecture when satellite and terrestrial networks merge. One issue that
network operators have to deal with is how to achieve flexibility and manage the resources of the
heterogeneous network in order to integrate satellite and terrestrial networks. In actuality, there
are no standards for the infrastructures of various networks, and managing them simultaneously
is a great challenge.
When it comes to high user or satellite mobility, satellite-terrestrial networks face a connectivity
block that is different from that of terrestrial networks [168], [177]. Certain services that are
sensitive to delays are negatively impacted by the sporadic connection. Furthermore, the system's
enormous number of entities is definitely straining its capacity for effective resource allocation.
It is imperative to upgrade the communication nodes in the system as numerous innovations in
networking will be incorporated into the satellite-terrestrial networks. The majority of network
hardware is currently built for customized services, and adding new technologies to the
infrastructure will take time and money. Furthermore, because of the environment in which they
operate, satellite networks typically have certain settings. For terrestrial applications,
transparency in routing, QoS, security, management, and connectivity is crucial.
It is believed that SDN/NFV will play a major role in enabling more adaptable and quick
integration of terrestrial and satellite networks [32]. SDN-based satellite-terrestrial networks
divide the data plane and control plane as a widely used SDN architecture. The controllers of the
satellite-terrestrial network can effectively determine the path to transmit the flow and ensure the
quality of service (QoS) based on the data gathered from the networks. On the data plane,
however, nodes only follow the directives from controllers, which are given flexibility by the
programmable devices. Standard open interfaces such as Openflow [112] serve as the foundation
for the network and offer a practical method for configuring and facilitating communication
between various entities on planes.
 FIGURE 8.Functional architecture of SDN based satellite-terrestrial networks.

The switches that make up the data plane are dispersed throughout terrestrial and satellite
networks, handling packet transmission in accordance with the flow table. Wireless radios or
cables link related communication infrastructures. On the data plane, physical objects perform
the role of data forwarding. More specifically, the plane's physical infrastructures carry out load
balancing. For load sharing, access technologies, gateways, and carriers are used. Multiplexing,
encapsulation, coding, and modulation are also presented in the MAC layer.
Managers and controllers make up the control and management plane. Controllers gather
network status data from their locations in satellite earth stations and terrestrial communication
systems. The control plane can be used to perform routing, handover, network operating system,
and network status collection controls. The control plane is responsible for gathering information
and disseminating the plan created by the control plane. It is also capable of handling physical
parameters. For operators, synchronization in both the time and frequency domains must be
ensured in order to create an orchestral satellite-terrestrial network. It is required to compile data
on resources for access and login capability for user terminals. Additionally, since authentication
can prevent some unauthorized users from accessing the network, admission control should be
integrated into the aircraft.
Managing the entire satellite-terrestrial system that is visualized, the manage plane is in charge
of network management operations. In the plane, network composition can be implemented by
multi-domain federated orchestration, which divides the end-to-end services into each domain
and guarantees the quality of service (QoS). Managers provide the service interface in this case.
Typical applications include radio resource management, which dynamically allocates the
bandwidth of terrestrial or satellite links and adaptive coding modulation according to different
link quality. Various security strategies can be handled in accordance with various service
requirements. The resources needed can also be determined and set up in accordance with the
status of the tracked satellite and terrestrial networks.
Satellite networks can be used as controllers in the control plane or as forwarding nodes in the
data plane, according to the articles we reviewed. For example, data planes are formed by
terminal routers and satellite infrastructures (such as GEO, MEO, and LEO satellites). As a
group, GEO satellites with a stable link state cover the data plane and transfer policies from the
manage plane to the data plane. Satellites support spotbeam management, access control, and
routing and are arranged in constellations. According to the authors, every satellite ought to
have:

(i) SDR, which facilitates radio reconfiguration and remote upgrade by enabling programmable
MAC and physical-layer functions.
(ii) A flow table directs the satellite's packet transmission. The controller can use the southbound
interface to change the flow table.
(iii) A wireless hypervisor can build a virtual satellite based on the needs of the system.
Additionally, there are multiple satellite front ends that support various satellite links for
communication
(iv) and (iv). Additionally, some LEOs in the architecture are used for network statement
collection and data forwarding, while GEOs are considered space network controllers. Polar
areas cannot be covered by the few GEOs, and frequency interaction would add to the workload.
To address the issue brought on by the shortage of GEO satellites, additional LEOs can be used
as slave controllers.

Interference Mitigation Techniques in Wireless Communications Systems

An unwanted wireless signal that is mixed in with the original signal can cause the electronic
equipment to temporarily lose its wireless signal, perform poorly as a receiver, or produce output
that is of poor quality.
Co-channel and adjacent channel interferences are two types of channel interferences that can
affect how well wireless communication systems operate.
One efficient way to mitigate interference from wireless signals is to lower their radio frequency
power.

Unsettling issues with interference have an impact on how well wireless communication systems
operate. Wireless signal transmission is more prone to interference, which can impact
neighboring consumer and electronic device functionality.
Systems for wireless communication can cause interference or be the victim of it. An
interference-immune wireless communication system is achieved through a variety of
interference mitigation strategies.
Interference modeling
The two communication links that share the spectrum are part of the proposed satellite terrestrial
cognitive scenario.
The connections between fixed SAT terminals and satellites, terrestrial BS and terrestrial user
terminals, fixed SAT terminals and satellites, and terrestrial user terminals and terrestrial BS are
among the possible routes for these links. Two priority conditions, such as granting primary
access to a satellite or a terrestrial link, can be established in this situation. Due to unfavorable
transmission circumstances, satellite links can frequently be regarded as primary links, while
terrestrial links can occasionally be regarded as primary. The latter circumstance may be
advantageous. to utilize terrestrial spectrum for the benefit of satellite operators. A terrestrial
WiMax network and a satellite network operating in the C band can be significant applications
for the satellite cognitive scenario. While the question of WiMax service interference with
satellite downlink transmission has been discussed extensively, cognitive techniques are not
currently being used in practical scenarios to share the frequency band. It is possible to bring
these two systems into operation on the same spectrum by applying the appropriate cognitive
strategies.
Exploiting the VHF analog spectrum that will become available following the DVB-T
switchover is another possible use case for this network design. A terrestrial mobile network and
a satellite to vehicle service could share this spectrum. By making sure that the interference level
stays below the interference threshold set by PUs, the overlay technique can be used between
two systems. Appropriate overlay cognitive techniques can be utilized to assist low SNR satellite
users and to offer some service to terrestrial users without compromising the quality of service of
the satellite link. Despite the apparent contradiction between these two tasks, the terrestrial base
station can take advantage of the satellite messages' cognitive abilities to maximize spectrum
utilization. The unoccupied spectrum can be found using SS or interweave techniques, which can
then be assigned to secondary access bands. Every cognitive technique has distinct needs and
varying degrees of relevance to the scenario under consideration.
The optimal approach can be chosen using interference modeling as a tool, taking into account
the cognitive scenario and geographical area. A cognitive technique that works well in one place
and under one set of circumstances might not work well in other places or under different
circumstances. In the context of satellite terrestrial network coexistence, it is crucial to choose an
appropriate cognitive technique for the effective operation of CR networks. In order to determine
the optimal cognitive technique based on the geographical location, we present various
transmission modes for satellite terrestrial cognitive scenarios in the ensuing subsections and
model the interference based on interference power level.
Interference in Wireless Communication Systems
In wireless communication systems, signal transmission occurs through the medium of air. As
transmitters share the common medium of air, devices operating in the same frequencies can be
mutually accessible and can disrupt functioning. When the wireless communication signals are
disrupted or weakened by the presence of other wireless signals, it is considered to be
interference. Any device that emits electromagnetic signals can be subjected to interference.
Unwanted wireless signals injected into the original signal may result in a temporary loss of
wireless signals, poor receiver performance, or bad quality of output by electronic equipment.
Interference can sometimes cause network slowdown, which is less evident in low capacity data
transmission but a serious problem in high capacity data transmission. Most wireless
communication systems can generate interference in electronic devices in the nearby vicinity.
Similarly, electronic systems such as cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, wireless video
cameras, and microwave ovens can interfere with wireless communication systems.
Some other causes of interference in wireless communication systems include:
1. Multiple communication systems that share the bandwidth on one channel
2. Hidden nodes in wireless networks generate numerous cyclic redundancy check code
errors
3. Broad radiofrequency emissions from bad electrical connections
4. Radiofrequency jamming
5. Channel interferences
The channel interferences influencing the performance of wireless communication systems can
be co-channel interferences or adjacent channel interferences. The upcoming section introduces
these types of interference in wireless communication systems.
Types of Interference in Wireless Communication Systems
Based on the spacing between desired and interfering signals, there are two types of interference:
Co-channel interference - Interference in wireless systems that transmit signals at the same
frequency is called co-channel interference.
Adjacent channel interference - Interference in wireless systems caused by adjacent frequency
signals.
Based on the type of signal interfering, the interference in wireless communications can be
classified into:
Electromagnetic interference - The electromagnetic signals emitted by various systems and
devices interfere with the desired signals of wireless communication systems.
Sound interference - There can be constructive as well as destructive interference caused by
sound waves in speakers and other sound-producing devices.
Light interference - Light waves can interfere with communication systems transmitting signals
through other mediums.
Multicarrier systems utilizing orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) techniques
experience the following two interference types:
InterCarrier interference - In telecommunications, the OFDM subcarriers lose orthogonality
and cause interference called intercarrier interference (ICI).
InterSymbol interference - The time delay in OFDM symbols traveling from the transmitting
end to the receiving end results in the spreading out of OFDM symbols and they interfere with
consecutive OFDM symbols.
Interference Mitigation Techniques in Wireless Communication Systems
There are several techniques and algorithms established in wireless communication systems to
mitigate interference.
Reduce the power level: The reduction in radio frequency power of wireless signals is an
effective method of interference mitigation.
Filtering and equalizers: In communication channels whose characteristics are known, filters
can be incorporated for interference mitigation. If the channel characteristics are unknown,
equalizers are an alternative to filters.
Transmission at different frequencies, in different places, and at different times: The
wireless communication systems covering the same area can transmit at the same time if they are
using different frequencies. Local television stations, radio stations, mobile communication, and
other wireless communication systems utilize this technique for mitigating interference.
Avoiding the locally used frequencies in wireless communication systems can reduce
interference.
The transmission of wireless signals at the same frequency at the same time can be employed
without interference problems only when they are separated. If the geographic areas of
transmission are far away and the signals are within the allowable power levels, then there can be
no interference.
Wireless communication systems can transmit signals over the same area using the same
frequency without interference if the transmission times are different. Dividing the radio
spectrum into different channels using techniques such as frequency division, time division, and
code division is another interference mitigation technique in wireless communication systems.

How 5G Technology Works

5G technology works by using higher frequencies, smaller cell sizes, and advanced network
architecture to deliver faster and more reliable communication.
It operates on three frequency bands: low, mid, and high. The low-band frequency provides
broad coverage but limited speed, while the high-band frequency provides high speeds but
limited coverage.
The mid-band frequency provides a balance between coverage and speed.
(i)Importance of 5G Technology
The importance of 5G technology lies in its ability to enable faster communication, improve the
user experience, and provide new opportunities for industries.
It is expected to drive innovation and economic growth, transform industries such as healthcare,
transportation, and manufacturing, and enable new applications such as augmented reality,
virtual reality, and smart cities.
5G Technology in Telecom Industry
The “G” – or generation – of cellular technology is one of the main forces behind the ongoing
change and evolution of the telecom sector.
Faster speeds, greater capacity, and new features that improve our quality of life and connectivity
come with each new iteration.
Why 5G is Important for the Telecom Industry
The telecom sector needs to engage in 5G if it wants to remain competitive. This will not only
give them an advantage over their rivals, but it will also enable them to provide the most cutting-
edge technology to their clients.
5G is significant because it has several benefits over earlier wireless technology versions. For
starters, it has much faster rates, allowing users to do more with their devices.
Additionally, it has reduced latency, which means that using 5G-capable devices will result in
less lag. Since 5G uses less energy than earlier generations, telecom firms can reduce their
energy costs.
Overall, 5G signifies a significant advancement for the telecom sector. It provides greater
reliability, reduced latency, and faster speeds. All of which are necessary for the upcoming
creation of new services and apps.
Impact of 5G Technology on the Telecom Industry
The introduction of 5G will drastically alter the telecommunications sector. New services and
applications that were previously impossible will be made feasible by 5G’s faster speeds and
lower latency.
The way telecom providers conduct business will significantly change as a result of this. The
network architecture will be greatly impacted by 5G as well. For the high speeds and low latency
of 5G, the existing 4G infrastructure is not built.
Telecom companies will need to update their networks to accommodate the new technology in
order to implement 5G. Although this upgrade will be expensive, it is essential to beat the
competition.
Consolidation in the telecommunications sector will also be sparked by the introduction of 5G.
Small players will struggle to live due to the high costs of 5G deployment.
In the upcoming years, we anticipate a significant number of mergers and purchases in the
telecom industry.
The 5th generation (5G) of wireless communication technology is expected to revolutionize the
telecom industry in many ways. Here are some of the potential impacts of 5G
5G services
5G improves on the 4G services over several axis:
Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB): Higher data-rates are specified. For the downlink, up to
50 Mbps are offered for outdoor and 1 Gbps for indoor (5GLAN), with half of these values
available for the uplink. A number of case studies have been under consideration, amongst them
is aviation – where eMBB is helping deliver a bitrate of 1,2 Gbps to an airborne flight.
Critical Communications (CC) and Ultra Reliable and Low Latency Communications
(URLLC): In some contexts, extremely high reliability is expected. For instance, for remote
control of process automation, a reliability of 99,9999% is expected, with a user experienced
data rate up to 100 Mbps and an end-to-end latency of 50 ms. This is provided in particular
through the Edge Computing capability.
Massive Internet of Things (mIoT). Several scenarios require the 5G system to support very
high traffic densities of devices. The Massive Internet of Things requirements include the
operational aspects that apply to the wide range of IoT devices and services anticipated in the 5G
timeframe.
Flexible network operations. These are a set of specificities offered by the 5G system, as
detailed in the following sections. It covers aspects such as network slicing, network capability
exposure, scalability, and diverse mobility, security, efficient content delivery, and migration and
interworking.
This diversity of requirements, associated to the different categories of usage described above,
enables the 5G system (5GS) to be useful to a new set of markets aka. "verticals", including:
automotive, rail & maritime communications; transport and logistics; discrete automation;
electricity distribution; public Safety; health and wellness; smart cities; media and entertainment.
In addition to the new 5G-specific services, the 5G system supports almost all the 4G LTE ones
and mobility between a 5G core network and a 4G core network (EPC) is supported, with
minimum impact on the user experience.
Overall architecture
Schematically, the 5G system uses the same elements as the previous generations: a User
Equipment (UE), itself composed of a Mobile Station and a USIM, the Radio Access Network
(NG-RAN) and the Core Network (5GC), as shown in the figure below.

Figure 1: overview of the 5GS

The main entity of the NG-RAN is the gNB, where "g" stands for "5G" and "NB" for "Node B",
which is the name inherited from 3G onwards to refer to the radio transmitter. The radio
interface is named "NR-Uu" for similar reasons, although with divergences: here, "5G" is
indicated by "NR" (for "New Radio") and Uu is also a name inherited from previous generations.
The gNB may be further split into a gNB-Central Unit (gNB-CU) and one or more gNB-
Distributed Unit(s) (gNB-DU), linked by the F1 interface.
The 5GC is here schematically represented by the AMF/UPF entity: the User Plane Function
(UPF), handling the user data and, in the signalling plane, the Access and Mobility management
Function (AMF) that accesses the UE and the (R)AN. Further entities of the 5GC are presented
below. The reference point between the access and the core networks is called "NG". This
reference point is constituted of several interfaces (mostly N2, N3), as shown below.
The 5GC architecture relies on a "Service-Based Architecture" (SBA) framework, where the
architecture elements are defined in terms of "Network Functions" (NFs) rather than by
"traditional" Network Entities. Via interfaces of a common framework, any given NF offers its
services to all the other authorized NFs and/or to any "consumers" that are permitted to make use
of these provided services. Such an SBA approach offers modularity and reusability.
The Figure 2, extracted from ‘System architecture for the 5G System (5GS)’ (TS 23.501), shows
the main NFs:

Figure 2: the 5GS architecture

In the figure above, the User Plane, i.e. the Network Functions (NFs) and elements involved in
the transport of user data, is shown at the bottom level, whereas the upper part of the figure
shows all the essential NFs within the signalling plane. In this first approach, the following NFs
are shown:
The four entities already introduced, i.e.: the UE, the NG-RAN or (R)AN, the UPF and the AMF
1. The (external) Data Network (DN), mostly in the User Plane
2. The Application Function (AF), controlling the application(s) (with possible involvement
also in the user plane)
3. The Session Management Function (SMF), that handles the calls and sessions, and
contacts the UPF accordingly
4. The Unified Data Management (UDM), functionally similar to 3G and 4G's HSS (and
2G's HLR)
 5. The Policy Control Function (PCF), that controls that the user data traffic does not
exceed the negotiated bearer(s) capacities
6. The Network Repository Function (NRF), which "controls" the other NFs by providing
support for NF register, deregister and update service to NF and their services.
The security-related NFs: Network Exposure Function (NEF), Authentication Server Function
(AUSF), Security Anchor Functionality (SEAF) – see TechGuide "Security in 5G"
The Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) – see TechGuide "Slicing in 5G"
The charging framework migrated from the Diameter based Off- and Online charging to
converged charging service with Service Based Interface (SBI) as defined in TS 32.240, for
Operators to be able to monetize the various set of 5GS features and services.

5G Protocol stacks
A protocol stack is defined e.g. in TS 23.501 for communications between several of these NFs,
and secondary ones, not presented in the figure above. Here, we highlight some of the main ones:
Control plane: the UE-to-AMF and UE-to-SMF protocol stack
The protocol stack between the UE and the SMF, via the AMF, is shown in the next figure [TS
23.501, section 8.2]:

Figure 3: Control Plane protocol stack between the UE, the 5G-AN, the AMF and the SMF
NAS-SM: it supports the handling of Session Management between the UE and the SMF. It
supports user plane PDU Session Establishment, modification and release. It is transferred via
the AMF, and transparent to the AMF. It is defined in ‘Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) protocol for
5G System (5GS); Stage 3’ (TS 24.501).
NAS-MM: it supports registration management functionality, connection management
functionality and user plane connection activation and deactivation. It is also responsible of
ciphering and integrity protection of NAS signalling. 5G NAS protocol is defined in TS 24.501.
5G-AN Protocol layer: This set of protocols/layers depends on the 5G-AN. In the case of NG-
RAN, the radio protocol between the UE and the NG-RAN node (eNodeB or gNodeB) is
specified in the E-UTRA & E-UTRAN; ‘Overall description; Stage 2’ (TS 36.300) and the NR
‘Overall description; Stage-2’ in TS 38.300. In the case of non-3GPP access,.
NG Application Protocol (NG-AP): Application Layer Protocol between the 5G-AN node and
the AMF. NG-AP is defined in TS 38.413.
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP): This protocol guarantees delivery of
signalling messages between AMF and 5G-AN node (N2). SCTP is defined in ietf RFC 4960.
Note that there is also a direct communication between 5G-AN and SMF, called N2 SM
information: this is the subset of NG-AP information (not shown on the figure) that the AMF
transparently relays between the 5G-AN and the SMF, and is included in the NG-AP messages
and the N11 related messages.
User plane: the UE-to-AMF and UE-to-SMF protocol stack
The following figure is extracted from TS 23.501, section 8.3. It illustrates the protocol stack for
the User plane transport related with a PDU Session.

Figure 4: User Plane Protocol Stack between the UE, the 5G-AN and the UPF
PDU layer: This layer corresponds to the PDU carried between the UE and the DN over the
PDU Session. When the PDU Session Type is IPv4 or IPv6 or IPv4v6, it corresponds to IPv4
packets or IPv6 packets or both of them; When the PDU Session Type is Ethernet, it corresponds
to Ethernet frames; etc.
GPRS Tunnelling Protocol for the user plane (GTP U): This protocol supports tunnelling user
data over N3 (i.e. between the 5G-AN node and the UPF) and N9 (i.e. between different UPFs of
the 5GC) in the backbone network, details see TS 29.281. GTP shall encapsulate all end user
PDUs. It provides encapsulation on a per PDU Session level. This layer carries also the marking
associated with a QoS Flow defined in clause 5.7. This protocol is also used on N4 interface as
defined in TS 29.244.
5G-AN protocol stack: This set of protocols/layers depends on the AN. When the 5G-AN is a
3GPP NG-RAN, these protocols/layers are defined in TS 38.401. The radio protocol between the
UE and the 5G-AN node (eNodeB or gNodeB) is specified in TS 36.300 and TS 38.300. L2 is
also called the "Data Link Layer" and the L1 is the "Physical Layer".
UDP/IP: These are the backbone network protocols.
The 5G radio interface
5G's radio technology is called NR (for New Radio). It is specified in TS 38.300 "NR; NR and
NG-RAN Overall description; Stage-2".
For layer 1: for the downlink (DL), i.e. network to UE, NR uses OFDM with Cyclic Prefix (CP)
(similar to LTE). For the uplink (UL), i.e. UE to network, OFDM can also be used, as well as
DFT-s-OFDM (OFDM with Discrete Fourier Transform precoding). DFT-s-OFDM improves
UL coverage but it has lower peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) and is limited to single-layer
transmission only.
Some key characteristics of 5G layer 1 is that it spreads over multiple frequency ranges, to
enable deployment in frequencies on a per-country or per-region basis. The carriers are from
400 MHz up to 100 GHz, but the licensed bands are from 600 MHz up to 39 GHz. These
frequencies are re-farmed analogue TV (UHF) bands and some satellites systems, without
interference since used in different locations.
For terrestrial, 3 main ranges of frequencies are identified:
Up to 1 GHz: with its better propagation characteristics, this set is intended to cover large areas,
typically for rural deployment. The maximum bandwidth for one carrier is 100 MHz.
From 1 to 6 GHz: this intermediate range is for 5G deployment in a urban or sub-urban context.
Here too, the maximum bandwidth is 100 MHz.
Higher than 6 GHz: with its poorer propagation but higher bandwidth to the user (maximum
bandwidth of 400 MHz), this range is meant for dense urban environment ("hot-spot" type of
coverage).
More high-level details of the 5G NR, including the layer 1, are provided in the Summary of Rel-
15 Work Items: TR 21.915.
The "Non-Stand Alone" (NSA) versus the "Stand-Alone" (SA) architecture
Two deployment options are defined for 5G:
the "Non-Stand Alone" (NSA) architecture, where the 5G Radio Access Network (AN) and its
New Radio (NR) interface is used in conjunction with the existing LTE and EPC infrastructure
Core Network (respectively 4G Radio and 4G Core), thus making the NR technology available
without network replacement. In this configuration, only the 4G services are supported, but they
enjoy the capacities offered by the 5G New Radio (lower latency, etc). The NSA is also known
as "E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (EN-DC)" or "Architecture Option 3". See also the clause
on EDCE5.
the "Stand-Alone" (SA) architecture, where the NR is connected to the 5G CN. Only in this
configuration, the full set of 5G Phase 1 services are supported.
The NSA architecture is illustrated in the following figure.
 Figure 5: The NSA Architecture
The NSA architecture can be seen as a temporary step towards a "full 5G" deployment, where
the 5G Access Network is connected to the 4G Core Network. In the NSA architecture, the (5G)
NR base station (logical node "en-gNB") connects to the (4G) LTE base station (logical node
"eNB") via the X2 interface. The X2 interface was introduced prior to Release 15 to connect two
eNBs. In Release 15, it also supports connecting an eNB and en-gNB to provide NSA.
The NSA offers dual connectivity, via both the 4G AN (E-UTRA) and the 5G AN (NR). It is
thus also called "EN-DC", for "E-UTRAN and NR Dual Connectivity".
In EN-DC, the 4G's eNB is the Master Node (MN) while the 5G's en-gNB is the Secondary
Node (SN).
This is explained in detail on the dedicated section on NSA of this document.
The SA architecture is illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 6: The SA Architecture

The SA architecture can be seen as the "full 5G deployment", not needing any part of a 4G
network to operate.
The NR base stations (logical node "gNB") connect with each other via the Xn interface, and the
Access Network (called the "NG-RAN for SA architecture") connects to the 5GC network using
the NG interface.
Some specificities of the 5G network
The rest of this section refers to the 5G SA architecture, with the NSA being addressed in a later
section.More than a new radio interface, the 5G network introduces a number of key new
technologies. Some of them are briefly introduced here:
Network Slicing: This is the ability to deploy and use simultaneously different CNs, each one
specialised in the provisioning of a given set of services and/or a given set of subscribers. For
instance, one slice can support the "usual" network operator’s subscribers, another slice might be
dedicated to support the subscribers of a virtual operator, a third one can handle a specific
service, like tracking of containers via M2M, etc.
Network Function Virtualization: As shown in Figure 2, all the Network Functions
communicate through a common interface and so can be located anywhere. This allows for much
greater flexibility in the network deployment. Maintenance is also greatly simplified, as a
temporary NF can be easily established.
EDGE computing: Some computational power is introduced as "physically close" to the end-user
as possible. Indeed, some applications such are virtual reality, factories of the future or
autonomous driving, are very demanding in terms of the propagation's/network's response time.
To reduce this time, some "local replications” of a main server are introduced closer to the end-
user.
Key Enablers for the Convergence of Satellite and Terrestrial Networks
Long-distance transmission and wide service coverage are the most remarkable characteristics
that separate satellite networks from other communication systems. Although the idea that
satellites would play more important roles has been confirmed at the beginning of the advanced
proposals for personal satellite services many years ago, it is very difficult to integrate the
independent networks into a seamless one providing customized services While the terrestrial
telecommunication network has embraced the boost of the technology, satellites entitled
capabilities that can deeply affect the communication networks are proposed to provide a wide
range of services these years. For example, the “other 3 billion” (O3b) constellation deployed in
medium earth orbit provide an optimized Internet service Similarly, others like Intelsat, SES
global also support this type of service . The Orbcomm, a leading solution provider for remotely
track, monitor, and control fixed and mobile assets, develops an IoT and M2M system comprised
of a low earth orbit constellation, which benefits from its small size and minimal transmission
delay. The main technologies behind the different applications are very similar in both terrestrial
and space systems , but as two systems developed separately, the technical gap and differences
still remain in the innovation of satellite networks. For that innovations in the terrestrial network
have been extensively surveyed while few articles summaries the counterparts in satellite, in this
chapter, we list these key enablers for convergence of satellite and terrestrial networks.
A. SDN/NFV in Satellite Networks
The technologies of SDN and NFV have been widely deployed in terrestrial networks. Providing
applications in complicated scenarios, satellite networks are required to implement an effective
communication paradigm for customized services. The requirement should be supported by a
sophisticated network management strategy in which SDN and NFV concepts are helpful to
achieve full network convergence and flexible management [38].
SDN aims at providing a dynamic and programmable network structure to break the lock of
physical equipment limitations. The open networking foundation (ONF) [39], an organization
dedicated to the promotion and adoption of SDN, defines SDN as a programmable network
where the control plane is separated from the data plane. The separation releases the tight
interconnection of signaling and data, it simplifies the management that usually full of stringent
requirements. For better understanding the principles of SDN, we list the main idea of
it [40], [41]: (i) the decouple of control plane from data plane, (ii) the flexible architecture
making decisions based on whole network states, and (iii) the logical control and management
part abstracted from physical infrastructures. High mobility and limited onboard processing
ability of satellite networks make the effective and optimal management a challenging task. The
newly emerging studies on SDN/NFV-enabled satellite networks mainly aim at the
softwarization and virtualization in the ground segment. It is also worth mentioning that while
SDN in terrestrial networks has been studied a lot, as the bottleneck of the cooperative network,
satellite networks have already been paid increasing attention to in the process of softwarization.
For satellite communication networks, the architecture is simpler, GEO and other satellite
controllers are usually taken as the control plane, MEO and LEO satellites form the data plane,
and manage centers located in space or on ground are taken as the management plane. Some
researches try to deploy the idea of SDN to transform the satellite networks ]. A new software-
defined architecture for next-generation satellite networks, called SoftSpace, is presented in The
authors mainly focus on the network management using proposed architecture. With this regard,
multi-layer controller, cooperative traffic classification, and network virtualization are involved.
Furthermore, they identified challenges of the architecture, which are QoS-aware routing, fault
recovery mechanism and mobility management. Unfortunately, a more specific analysis of
solutions dealing with challenge should be presented and the implementation should be taken
into consideration. Thus reference [42] proposes an SDN scheme aiming at segment control, and
authors analyze controlling overhead and showed that SDN scheme with segment control
technique can scale down the overhead. However, it is vital to point out that more works shall be
done in efficient cross-layer resources allocation algorithm and distributed control schemes.
Focusing on digital video broadcasting satellite system, authors in visualize satellite terminals
and consider the split and placement of virtualized and nonvirtualized functions. In the proposed
framework, Satellite Cloud Radio Access Network (Sat-CloudRAN), part of the satellite gateway
functionalities can be delivered and the flexible control can be achieved. The main contribution
of the paper is that they fill the gap in satellite gateway virtualization and present how to manage
the virtualized satellite ground infrastructure using SDN technology, the SDN control of satellite
core networks is also investigated. However, the implementation of the transportation network in
the satellite network is not involved. Also, a proof-of-concept prototype should be designed to
determine the functionalities proposed in this paper.
It is vital to point out that recently LEO satellite networks, which are suitable for the delay-
sensitive data, have been explored to adopt the SDN technology. For instance, reliable control
links associated from the SDN controller to all the LEO satellites is the basis of the architecture,
however unstable wireless channel and Doppler effect would have influence on the links
between LEO satellite and terrestrial terminals, Cho et al. propose a power-efficient control link
algorithm according to the power control analysis [43]. The solution help satellites establish low
latency control links with reduced power consumption. The paper shed light on the feasibility the
software-defined LEO satellite network.
Focusing on LEO satellites’ rapid mobility and the limited controller process ability on broad,
Papa et al. propose a solution for controller placement problem of SDN-based LEO satellite
networks . They develop a dynamic controller placement on the LEO satellites, and find a
method considering spatial and temporal user traffic requirements. Though the method is more
promising, a further investigation on migration cost and communication overhead is essential.
Some researchers have already considered more practical SDN-based architectures comprised of
LEO satellites and terrestrial networks. In authors elaborate on the architecture of an SDN-based
LEO satellite and terrestrial networks, they model the data flow and proposed a plastic path with
the consideration of latency, capacity, wavelength fragmentation, and load balancing. It shows
that LEO networks can help the networks performs better with a slight disadvantage in latency
when the service requirements are overload. There exist some paper dealing with transportation
problems in this aspect. For instance, in , a dynamic routing protocol based on software defined
satellite networks have been studied for large LEO systems. Overlapping footprints, fast
changing of inter satellite link (ISL) states are identified as challenges in the system. However,
routing in the spotbeams is not investigated and the model of ISL should be more accurate.
At the same time, application of SDN based satellite networks have already been investigated.
For example, Nazari et al. analysis an SDN framework to a fleet of naval ships that relies on
constellations for onboard communication .They solve the sharing and load balancing problems
in satellite links by leveraging multi-path transmission control protocol (MPTCP). Ships are
taken as SDN switch management and classification of MPTCP subflows are handled by a
remote SDN controller. The frame work enhance the network throughput and reliability.
As described in , NFV is a network abstraction technology. Using the NFV technology, network
functions that used for dedicated hardware are implemented in the form of software. Therefore,
the new software function can enable operations on top of general-purpose hardware. The main
benefits of NFV are (i) creating customized network services with the inherent flexible edibility
as network functions can be assembled and allocated according to service requirements, (ii) the
central servers in NFV framework liberate capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operational
expenditures (OPEX) from additional hardware cost when new services are required, (iii)
breaking the physical restrictions and provide a global management foundation for software-
based networks. In satellite networks, NFV elaborates resources from physical devices, systems
in the air benefit from redefining architecture logic as what it brings terrestrial networks. Usually
SDN and NFV technologies introduce flexibility to SNOs, the technologies work together to
reduce costs in deploying and managing.
Reference investigates the applicability of the NFV technologies to satellite communications
platforms and identify the associated challenges and considerations. In the article, authors outline
that core satellite gateway, radio front-end functions, on board functions of the satellite payload
and customized functions like firewalling and traffic inspection. Specifically, the authors point
out that availability and performance should be taken into account and NFV resilience
mechanisms should be exploited such as live VNF migration to failover server units. At the same
time, they consider security issues, since visualization are implemented by software, bugs or
misconfigurations in satellite gateway may make the system delicate and be attacked by
malicious codes. Finally, NFV resource signaling overhead should be optimized since hundreds
or thousands of VNFs remotely over the satellite link would cause massive overhead. In
particular, mainly concentrate on satellite gateways and show the possibility of responding to
customized requirements through the implementation of virtualized satellite network functions.
They provide a general procedure for customer request and prove the feasibility by
demonstrating satcom services like virtual private network services, hybrid access and WAN
optimizations.
In fact, it is clear that SDN and NFV are promising technologies to enhance the satellite
networks, more agile and flexible management can be made in an SDN-based satellite networks
and it can facilitate the orchestration across space and ground communication nodes.
B. Cognitive Radio in Satellite Networks
Cognitive radio (CR) is a technology for other users to utilize the same frequency band allocated
to incumbent users based on prior knowledge of current spectrum use the limited bandwidth can
be utilized efficiently by introducing CR. As terrestrial systems have already been developed for
many years, CR based satellite ground terminals need to orchestrate with varied terrestrial
networks by sharing the same spectrum, time and spatial resources .
In 5G proposals published by International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the requirement of
high spectrum and energy efficiency is clarified. Aiming to achieve higher capacity and
improving coverage, satellite networks are introduced to form network structures with different
scales ranging from ground station cells to wide area coverage. To implement the integrated
satellite-terrestrial network and provide a seamless communication system, how to share the
radio resources is an urgent problem .In integrated satellite-terrestrial networks, satellite and
terrestrial communication infrastructure share the same radio frequency. Without cognitive radio
technology, satellite networks and the ground node operating at the same band simultaneously
would be interference to each other. Reasonable spectrum allocation for limited bandwidth can
provide a better QoS. Moreover, with the channel and radio resource are changing rapidly,
cognitive radio helps the entities in satellite networks access in the whole network
efficiently .Thus, more attention should be paid on Increasing the bandwidth usage for future-
generation satellite networks without interfering with incumbent services.
In the perspective of spectrum sharing, the coexistence of satellite and terrestrial networks can be
classified as two typical scenarios (i) satellites take the role as the primary user (PU), while
communication systems on the ground is the second user (SU) that should utilize the spectrum
when the spectrum is temporal available. And (ii) satellite is SU and accessing the channel when
PU, i.e. the ground network, is detected as not in transmission state.
Reference gives three possible scenarios for satellite networks operating at the Ka band:
(i) the cognitive wireless channel is from the GEO satellite to the fixed satellite service
(FSS) terminal, and the incumbent user is from the broadcasting satellite service
(BSS) feeder link to another GEO satellite which is utilized for broadcasting.
 (ii) (ii) a cognitive FSS downlink scheme operates in the 17.7–19.7 GHz band. In the
scenario, the incumbent users are fixed service (FS) links which serve communication
between FS terminals.
(iii) (iii) The cognitive wireless channel is from the FSS Earth terminal to the GEO
satellite, and the FSS terminal provides cognitive uplink communication with the
band 27.5–29.5 GHz where FS links are the incumbent users.
However, there exist several issues in the co-existence of the systems. One of the problems is
that satellite systems usually have long-distance propagation links, leading a delay which is not
compatible with terrestrial networks. Moreover, the long propagation paths usually make the
signals weak at the receiving stations on the ground. A method for the related receiver to get the
signal successfully, which usually rely on the adequate signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio
(SINR), is critical .
Another problem is related to the beam coverage of a satellite, the service area of a single beam
is usually larger than a terrestrial cell Massive cellular base stations operating in the shared
spectrum band may raise interference that cannot be ignored. In the case of uplink band of
satellite networks, the interference would be rather high that the satellite networks could hardly
distinguish the wanted signal from the coverage area, thus uplink channel to the target satellite
will be less interfered as high elevation will help the main beam from the ground physically point
to the target satellite while low elevation will make the information affected by signals on the
ground . This circumstance is also similar in the case of the downlink band of satellite systems .
Besides, usually the channels in wireless terrestrial networks confront multipath propagation
with frequency-selective fading. At the same time, channels in satellite systems are characterized
by line-of-sight (LoS) transmission with occasional heavy shadowing.
To solve these problems, more optimized spectrum awareness techniques and spectrum database
technologies are used in cognitive satellite communication networks In the context of cognitive
satellite networks, resource allocation problems are concerned most It is worth to mention that
recently some learning technologies like reinforcement learning are also used in cognitive
satellite communication for better resource allocation .
C. Satellite Based Internet of Things
The 5G whitepaper clearly states the scenarios of eMTC, the advent of IoT and M2M in civil
application enhance the performance of the intelligent electronic devices . For example, Long-
Range (LoRa) WAN and NarrowBand IoT (NB-IoT) are developed to surveillance disaster area
emergency and wearable devices monitoring health conditions.
Ensuring worldwide connectivity which is essential for sensors scattered in remote areas,
satellite IoT communication networks can provide a breakthrough in geographical restriction
because of the easy deployment merit and large coverage advantages Although the altitude
nature of satellite can mitigate drawbacks of shadowing and blockage effects, satellite internet of
things faces some challenges at the same time. IoT services are usually characterized as
heterogenous. Different form terrestrial IoT networks, IoT or M2M nodes in satellite networks
should pay more attention to reliability, uplink transmission rate, and guaranteed latency. For
instance, satellites like LEO moves fast in space, antennas’ mobility and atmosphere condition
would affect the reliability of channel a lot. Besides, the ability provided by large service can
also bring problems, the information generated in large areas by massive IoT or M2M nodes ask
the satellite provide a high uplink rate. Moreover, some nodes are deployed to respond for
emergency and a real-time information allocation is necessary for saving lives. Thus, a
guaranteed latency scheme is essential for satellite IoT systems.
Two fundamental problems in satellite based IoT make the innovation possible: ubiquitous
access and effective backhaul. For ubiquitous access, two typical deployment schemes of the
satellite IoT networks are identified direct access deployment scheme and indirect access
deployment scheme. For some sensors with large power transmitters, the direct access
deployment allows them to send information directly, while indirect access usually needs
aggregation nodes to collect data from massive sensors and process the redundant information.
Recently indirect access deployment gains more attention as it reduces the implementation cost
with lesser satellite terminals compared with direct access deployment require every sensor to
equip with a satellite terminal. There exist frameworks to analyze the performance of random
access-based satellite channels under the application of IoT communication flow which focuses
on the interaction between the random-access scheme and the constrained application protocol
(CoAP) to avoid congestion.
Using as backhaul, the system in is presented for IoT sensors and controllers for commercial
aircraft, satellite IoT networks are also utilized in power grid to monitor the power consumption
and help allocate the power effectively . Besides, some works shed light on the related design
implications of improving satellite-based IoT is the spectrum efficiency by using constellation
coding .
D. New Satellites
New satellites raise a revolution in space networks recently, and it is necessary to keep an eye on
this area as it will change traditional satellite networks deeply. Here we mainly review two kinds
of satellites: high throughput satellite (HTS) and Nano satellites.
High throughput satellites drastically increase capacity through frequency reuse and spatial
separation. The satellites are suitable for next generation broadband satellites employing spot
beams. Leveraging the improved modulation techniques and spotbeams of Ka-band as the
frequency range 27–40GHz and Ku-band as the frequency range 12–
18GHz frequency bandwidth efficiency of HTS can achieve an improvement evidently. It is
critical to mention that the bandwidth efficiency of the multi-beam user link can be substantially
increased by using quasi-orthogonal polarizations. The implementation can be done
simultaneously within each beam, or alternatively in beams around To gain the optimal capacity
of the network, the flexible multispot antenna configuration ability is deployed in the service
area.
Usually multi-beam HTS system needs to employ a very high reuse efficiency over the coverage
area The application of the multibeam concept with narrow beams and exploiting the frequency
reuse principle result in a great leap in satellite systems’ capacity. For example, typical HTSs
like Eutelsats KaSat, Viasat 1 and SES-12, can get a stable network performance with the
capacity up to 100Gbps The capacity of Viasat 2 now is 300Gbps and Viasat 3 will be 1Tbps
[and Eutelsat Konnect VHTS’s capacity is up to 500Gbps Besides, combined with LEO satellites
that operate at the altitude of 800–1000km , transmission latency can be reduced for quick
response .
Recently HTS gain great attention on frequency resource allocation. Inadequate frequency
management scheme may result in a malignant effect on systems, for example, it may lead to low
throughput, current task failures, and requirements rejections Therefore, the next generation of
HTSs need frequency flexibility according to different circumstances in communication digital
channelizer is the typical solution to alleviate the challenge .To cope with other problems like
link outage caused by weather conditions, references propose schemes using diversity to keep the
high capacity in satellite systems.
Exploration of Future Trends and Emerging Technologies in Satellite-Aided
5G Networks for Interference Mitigation:
Advancements in Antenna Systems:
Evolution of smart antennas: more advanced beamforming and spatial processing techniques.
Development of reconfigurable and adaptive antennas for improved interference rejection.
Exploration of massive MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) for enhanced interference
management and spectral efficiency.
Dynamic Spectrum Access and Cognitive Radio:
Integration of cognitive radio capabilities in satellite-aided 5G networks to dynamically access
spectrum.
Adaptive spectrum sensing and utilization techniques to mitigate interference and improve
network efficiency.
Machine Learning and AI-Based Solutions:
Utilization of machine learning algorithms for real-time interference prediction and mitigation.
AI-driven interference detection and classification for efficient interference management.
Satellite Constellation Innovations:
Advancements in satellite constellation designs (e.g., LEO, MEO, and GEO) for reduced latency
and enhanced coverage.
Emphasis on constellation planning and coordination to minimize interference among satellites
and ground stations.
Standardization and Protocol Enhancements:
Continued standardization efforts to define interference management protocols and guidelines.
Development of adaptive protocols for interference-aware resource allocation and scheduling.
Conclusion:
Effective interference management in 5G networks, especially when satellite communication is
involved, is crucial for ensuring optimal network performance and reliability. Key findings and
takeaways include:
Interference Challenges: Identification of various interference sources and their impact on 5G
systems, emphasizing the complexity of interference management.
Advancements: The report highlighted advancements in antenna technology, cognitive radio, AI-
driven solutions, and satellite constellation designs to combat interference.
Emerging Solutions: Recognition of machine learning and adaptive protocol enhancements as
promising solutions for interference mitigation.
Importance: Effective interference management is critical to realizing the full potential of 5G
networks, ensuring robust connectivity, high throughput, and low latency, especially in scenarios
involving satellite communications.
In conclusion, while significant progress has been made, the complexity of interference in
satellite-aided 5G networks remains a challenge. Future efforts should focus on collaborative
research, standardization, and the development of innovative technologies to tackle interference
issues effectively, ensuring seamless 5G connectivity across diverse environments and use cases.

Simulation
Interference mitigation through bandpass filtering is a fundamental technique used to suppress
unwanted signals and enhance the quality of communication systems, including those in satellite
and 5G networks. By employing bandpass filters, specific frequency bands carrying desired
signals are isolated while attenuating or blocking out-of-band interference.
Bandpass filtering is essential for separating the satellite's intended frequency bands from
neighboring or interfering signals in the context of 5G satellite communication. These filters are
made to have a narrow passband, which attenuates signals outside of the desired frequency range
by allowing only that range to pass through.
To achieve the required selectivity and attenuation characteristics, bandpass filters require
careful design considerations. In order to meet the strict requirements of satellite systems
operating in the 5G spectrum, advanced filter designs like cavity, microstrip, and surface
acoustic wave filters are frequently used.
Bandpass filters have drawbacks despite their efficiency in reducing interference, such as the
possibility of signal distortion, insertion loss, and difficulty in obtaining high selectivity.
Therefore, in order to maximize interference suppression and guarantee reliable communication
in satellite systems integrated with 5G networks, a variety of interference mitigation techniques
—including bandpass filtering—along with other signal processing methods are frequently used.
MATLAB CODE

% Define simulation parameters

startTime = datetime(2023, 11, 16, 0, 0, 0); % Start time
stopTime = startTime + hours(6); % End time
sampleTime = seconds(60); % Sample time in seconds

% Calculate number of steps

numHours = hours(stopTime - startTime);
numSteps = round(numHours / (sampleTime / hours(1))); % Convert sampleTime to
hours

% Create time vector

timeVector = linspace(0, numHours, numSteps);

% Simulate LEO satellite signal (sine wave for example)

frequency = 10; % Frequency of the signal in Hz
amplitude = 1; % Amplitude of the signal
leoSignal = amplitude * sin(2 * pi * frequency * timeVector);

% Add additive white Gaussian noise (interference)

snr = 10; % Signal-to-Noise Ratio in dB
interference = awgn(zeros(size(leoSignal)), snr, 'measured');

% Apply interference mitigation technique (e.g., simple filtering)

filteredSignal = filter(ones(1, 5) / 5, 1, leoSignal);

% Receiver Parameters
receiverAntennaGain = 20; % Receiver antenna gain in dBi
systemLosses = 3; % System losses in dB

% Channel Parameters
channelSNR = 15; % Channel SNR in dB

% Generate random binary data to represent transmitted signal

dataLength = numel(timeVector); % Use signal length as the data length
transmittedData = randi([0, 1], 1, dataLength);

% Modulation and Demodulation

modulatedSignal = pskmod(transmittedData, 2); % BPSK modulation
receivedSignal = awgn(modulatedSignal, channelSNR, 'measured'); % Add noise

demodulatedSignal = pskdemod(receivedSignal, 2); % Demodulate received signal

% Calculate Bit Error Rate (BER)

[numErrors, ber] = biterr(transmittedData, demodulatedSignal); % Calculate BER

% Received Signal at the Ground Station Receiver

receivedAtReceiver = receivedSignal;

% Calculate the received power at the receiver

receivedPowerAtReceiver = var(receivedAtReceiver) + receiverAntennaGain -
systemLosses;

% Calculate Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) at the receiver

receiverSNR = receivedPowerAtReceiver - 10*log10(var(receivedAtReceiver));
% Display the received power at the receiver
fprintf('Received Power at the Ground Station Receiver: %.2f dBW\n',
receivedPowerAtReceiver);

% Display SNR at the receiver

fprintf('SNR at the Ground Station Receiver: %.2f dB\n', receiverSNR);

% Display Bit Error Rate (BER)

fprintf('Bit Error Rate (BER): %.4f\n', ber);

% Plotting
figure;

% Original LEO Satellite Signal

subplot(3, 1, 1);
plot(timeVector, leoSignal, 'b', 'LineWidth', 1.5);
xlabel('Time');
ylabel('Amplitude');
title('LEO Satellite Signal');
grid on;

% AWGN Interference
subplot(3, 1, 2);
plot(timeVector, interference, 'r--', 'LineWidth', 1.2);
xlabel('Time');
ylabel('Amplitude');
title('Additive White Gaussian Noise');
grid on;

% Filtered Signal
subplot(3, 1, 3);
plot(timeVector, filteredSignal, 'g', 'LineWidth', 1.2);
xlabel('Time');
ylabel('Amplitude');
title('Filtered Signal');
grid on;

title('LEO Satellite Signals with Interference and Filtered Signal');

Link budget analysis

% Parameters
transmitPower = 30; % Transmit power in dBW
transmitAntennaGain = 20; % Transmit antenna gain in dBi
receiveAntennaGain = 25; % Receive antenna gain in dBi
systemLoss = 3; % System loss in dB
transmitFrequency = 2e9; % Transmit frequency in Hz
systemBandwidth = 5e6; % System bandwidth in Hz
noiseTemperature = 50; % Noise temperature in Kelvin

% Free space path loss calculation

c = physconst('LightSpeed'); % Speed of light
transmitDistance = 1e7; % Distance between satellites in meters
freeSpacePathLoss = fspl(transmitDistance, transmitFrequency);

% Received power calculation

receivedPower = transmitPower + transmitAntennaGain + receiveAntennaGain -
freeSpacePathLoss - systemLoss;

% Noise power calculation (using Boltzmann's constant)

kb = physconst('Boltzmann'); % Boltzmann's constant
noisePower = kb * noiseTemperature * systemBandwidth;

% Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) calculation

SNR = receivedPower - 10 * log10(noisePower);

% Bit Rate (example value)

bitRate = 1e6; % Bit rate in bits per second

% Energy per bit to noise power spectral density ratio (Eb/N0)

EbN0 = SNR - 10 * log10(bitRate);

% Displaying results
fprintf('Free Space Path Loss: %.2f dB\n', freeSpacePathLoss);
fprintf('Received Power: %.2f dBW\n', receivedPower);
fprintf('Noise Power: %.2f dBW\n', 10 * log10(noisePower));
fprintf('SNR: %.2f dB\n', SNR);
fprintf('Eb/N0: %.2f dB\n', EbN0);

Free Space Path Loss: 0.00 dB

Received Power: 72.00 dBW
Noise Power: -144.62 dBW
SNR: 216.62 dB
Eb/N0: 156.62 dB

Plotting SNR
% Define simulation parameters
startTime = datetime(2023, 11, 16, 0, 0, 0); % Start time
stopTime = startTime + hours(6); % End time
sampleTime = seconds(60); % Sample time in seconds

% Calculate number of steps

numHours = hours(stopTime - startTime);
numSteps = round(numHours / (sampleTime / hours(1))); % Convert sampleTime to
hours

% Create time vector

timeVector = linspace(0, numHours, numSteps);

% Initialize arrays
SNR = zeros(size(timeVector));

% Define varying SNR profile over time

SNR = 10 + sin(2 * pi * 0.1 * timeVector); % Example varying SNR profile

% Plot SNR versus time

figure;
plot(timeVector, SNR, 'LineWidth', 1.5);
xlabel('Time');
ylabel('SNR (dB)');
title('SNR versus Time');
grid on;
References
1. Chowdhury, M.Z.; Shahjalal, M.; Ahmed, S.; Jang, Y.M. 6G wireless communication
systems: Applications, requirements, technologies, challenges, and research directions.
IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. 2020, 1, 957–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Khan, L.U.; Yaqoob, I.; Imran, M.; Han, Z.; Hong, C.S. 6G wireless systems: A vision,
architectural elements, and future directions. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 147029–147044.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Dang, S.; Amin, O.; Shihada, B.; Alouini, M.-S. What should 6G be? Nat. Electron.
2020, 3, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Gupta, A.; Jha, R.K. A survey of 5G network: Architecture and emerging technologies.
IEEE Access 2015, 3, 1206–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, H.; Liu, N.; Chu, X.; Long, K.; Aghvami, A.-H.; Leung, V.C. Network slicing
based 5G and future mobile networks: Mobility, resource management, and challenges.
IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Hussein, H.H.; Abd El-Kader, S.M. Enhancing signal to noise interference ratio for
device to device technology in 5G applying mode selection technique. In Proceedings of
 the 2017 Intl Conf on Advanced Control Circuits Systems (ACCS) Systems & 2017 Intl
Conf on New Paradigms in Electronics & Information Technology (PEIT), Barcelona,
Spain, 5–8 November 2017; pp. 187–192. [Google Scholar]
7. Jyothsna, K.S.; Babu, T.A.; Murray, J.M. Possible solutions for interference coordination
in hetnets of Lte-A. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. (IJEET) 2021, 12, 171–178. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Adediran, Y.; Lasisi, H.; Okedere, O. Interference management techniques in cellular
networks: A review. Cogent Eng. 2017, 4, 1294133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Gachhadar, A.; Hindia, M.N.; Qamar, F.; Siddiqui, M.H.S.; Noordin, K.A.; Amiri, I.S.
Modified genetic algorithm based power allocation scheme for amplify-and-forward
cooperative relay network. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2018, 69, 628–641. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
10. Li, X.-Y.; Moaveni-Nejad, K.; Song, W.-Z.; Wang, W.-Z. Interference-aware topology
control for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 Second Annual IEEE
Communications Society Conference on Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and
Networks, 2005. IEEE SECON 2005, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 26–29 September 2005; pp.
263–274. [Google Scholar]
11. Shahjalal, M.; Kim, W.; Khalid, W.; Moon, S.; Khan, M.; Liu, S.; Lim, S.; Kim, E.; Yun,
D.-W.; Lee, J. Enabling technologies for AI empowered 6G massive radio access
networks. ICT Express, 2022; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. [8] M. Sanctis et al., “Satellite Communications Supporting Internet of Remote Things,” IEEE
Internet of Things J., vol. 3, no. 1, Feb. 2016, pp. 113–23.