You're looking at it the wrong way around
Pah!
I can only see xDSL making use of transceivers at each end of a metallic pathway. As long as signals from those transceivers do not leak from the metallic pathway and interfere with licensed broadcast transmissions, all well and good.
Indeed & I rather suspect it will be an issue in terms of interference in (for example) terraced houses where the master socket can be some distance from the entry point of the drop cable. The cabling there is likely to require replacing or it'll cause some issues for neighbours listening to FM.
If the cost of remedial work (for g.fast to get to the headline speeds) facing the consumer was more widely appreciated then I think people would stop wittering on about how expensive proper fibre deployment would be.
As an aside a friend in Sweden has had some disruption to his life as the owners of the block of flats ripped out & replaced "old" cabling. The building has had FTTB since 2009 or so with the service being something like 100/40Mbps max (no problem for anyone). They replaced the VDSL2 box with a super-duper g.fast box and the speeds were "somewhat underwhelming" according to my friend - I think he got an extra 20Mbps aggregate, can't remember but it wasn't much. There was a fair bit of sync instability as well for some flats. Anyway he sent me a picture of what had been installed when he was at work & its got a fibre connection now as well - owners covering their options this time. The block of flats is 11 years old. Edit - he now has a 200/100Mbps service (he can choose how to split the 300Mbps aggregation he pays for). I think in the couple of decades I've known him I have got to within 20Mbps of his downstream once
Edit2 - the thing that really irritates me is that his brother lives way the hell up in the north of Sweden and still has faster broadband than my 80/20....