For wiretaps:::

AT&T, for example, imposes a $325 "activation fee" for each wiretap and $10 a day to maintain it. Smaller carriers Cricket and U.S. Cellular charge only about $250 per wiretap. But snoop on a Verizon customer? That costs the government $775 for the first month and $500 each month after that, according to industry disclosures made last year to Congressman Edward Markey.

but how much do they make by aiding the government's spying on us?

To discourage gratuitous requests and to prevent losing money, industry turned to a section of federal law that allows companies to be reimbursed for the cost of "searching for, assembling, reproducing and otherwise providing" communications content or records on behalf of the government. The costs must be "reasonably necessary" and "mutually agreed" upon with the government.

Discourage gratuitous requests? That is funny..  it does not appear that the government is looking to cut costs on its spying programs, nor is the government looking to be more selective in their gathering of private communications of people on the internet

..phone companies developed detailed fee schedules and began billing law enforcement much as they do customers.....The ACLU's Soghoian found in 2009 that Sprint had created a website allowing law enforcement to track the location data of its wireless customers for only $30 a month to accommodate the approximately 8 million requests it received in one year.

$30/month for 8 million requests???   $240 million?

...the fees can add up quickly. The average wiretap is estimated to cost $50,000, a figure that includes reimbursements as well as other operational costs. One narcotics case in New York in 2011 cost the government $2.9 million alone.

Geoffrey Stone, A member of the White House review panel on NSA surveillance:

While Stone said the mass collection of telephone call records was a "logical program" from the NSA's perspective, one question the White House panel was seeking to answer was whether it had actually stopped "any [terror attacks] that might have been really big.""We found none," said Stone.

The report said that "there has been no instance in which NSA could say with confidence that the outcome [of a terror investigation] would have been any different" without the program.

(Judge)Leon said that government officials were unable to cite "a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk collection metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature."

The conclusions of the panel's reports were at direct odds with public statements by President Barack Obama and U.S. intelligence officials. "Lives have been saved," Obama told reporters last June, referring to the bulk collection program and another program that intercepts communications overseas. "We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information."

Details of the NSA's efforts to undermine crypto standards surfaced in September. But undisclosed until today was that RSA received $10 million in a deal that set an NSA backdoored algorithm as the preferred, or default, method for random number generation in RSA's widely used BSafe software library, according to two sources familiar with the contract.

Reuters' report suggests that RSA wasn't merely following the trends when it picked the algorithm and that contrary to its previous claims, the company has inserted presumed backdoors at the behest of the spy agency. The $10 million that the agency is said to have been paid was more than a third of the annual revenue earned for the crypto library.

Before bidding a formal farewell to the algorithm, it's worth mentioning that Dual EC_DRBG was suspiciously absent from Wednesday's report issued by President Obama's advisory panel on NSA surveillance. We would have expected to see at least passing mention of it in Appendix E of the full report, the section that disclosed the US government's role in forging encryption standards. Alas, there's none.

"Publishing" details "to the extent permitted by applicable U.S. and foreign laws and regulations" is somewhat vague, in my opinion.

How many hapless subscribers to Verizon will actually be able to easily find out if their personal information has been mined in the unholy alliance between these monopolistic corporations and the giant vacuum cleaner operated by the NSA and other bureaucracies?

Google, instead of "publishing" transparency reports,
should put warning notices on all searches, like: "This search may or may not be a little dicey and we are going to send it to the NSA as required by applicable U.S. and foreign laws and regulations. Have a nice day."