In this one particular case, yes. But not that they did not receive indirect remuneration (rate concessions) in exchange for unfulfilled broadband promises, possibly far exceeding $2B. I'm not sure why my comment was downvoted, as the article in the Inquirer shows that such promises were indeed made by Bell Atlantic.
But Bell Atlantic never did live up to promises it made in 1994 to build a fiber broadband network in exchange for permission to raise its rates.
http://articles.philly.com/1994-07-16/business/25844080_1_be...
Is the amount of money they garnered from keeping/raising their rates on the order of $2B? (My guess is that it's a larger number than that)