So the Constitution states that it is not the use of collected personal information, but "unreasonable" collection and searches for information that is disallowed. The issue then swings on what could be considered reasonable.
The precise definition of what is reasonable is right there in the 4th amendment: It is probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, formally blessed as acceptable by the issuance of a warrant which describes the places to be searched, things to be seized. Once the government meets that standard of reasonableness, they may then commence to search.
It does not seem to me that collecting all telephone metadata from everyone is a narrow enough criteria to be considered reasonable.
You don't get to say what is reasonable; the 4th already does that. Is the target here a person's papers? Their home? Their property (effects)? The actual person themselves? If so, then if the standard of reasonableness explicitly laid out in the 4th is met, the government may search; otherwise, not.
The question here turns entirely on who has the ownership of that data, and what the obligations are with regard to it. Does the metadata on my calls meet the definition of being part of my papers? I think it's pretty obvious that it does, but that's just one person's opinion. If that data contains my private information, then the 4th applies. If, however, the data is not in any way "my" data/papers, then the question moves on as to the government's rights with regard to coercing data from the clutches of corporations.
Before anyone leaps to the conclusion that having done business, for instance, with the phone company or an Internet provider somehow magically makes that data public, let me point out that a letter between you and I, or you and your bank, is very definitely part of your papers. If you think the phone company being a party to your data makes your papers public, please explain why that obtains, but the letter you wrote to you bank is still in the domain of your private papers.