Part of the problem is that these companies have a lot of incentive to remain on friendly terms with the government. Suppose you are a telecom company and you want to lay some new fiber -- do you really want to be the company that rebelled against the government? Would Microsoft, which was supposed to be broken up for antitrust law violations, really want to be a company that rebels against the government?
Sure, individual employees might leak the information, but they would being taking a great personal risk by doing so. Ed Snowden was not the only person who was aware of these programs and had a problem with them; yet he was the only one ready to give up his livelihood to leak the information.
Qwest simply refused NSA surveillance requests, and were rewarded with the cancellation of a government contract and having their CEO charged with securities fraud.
Is there evidence that the securities fraud charges were actually caused by their refusal? Or were they caused by the fact that the guy said Qwest was doing well and sold ahead of a huge downturn in prices? As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, the charges would have stuck irrespective of the NSA stuff.
The downturn in the stock came after the government dismissed the contract. "Induced" insider trading by the government manipulating the stock to tank, then prosecuting in some people's opinions.
Sure, individual employees might leak the information, but they would being taking a great personal risk by doing so. Ed Snowden was not the only person who was aware of these programs and had a problem with them; yet he was the only one ready to give up his livelihood to leak the information.