While I agree that the ITC is not known for its sterling decision-making skills, my recollection of the broader discussion about devices is a bit different. As communication devices got lighter and service areas larger, there was an ongoing debate in the outdoor world about whether they should be carried or not. Some people thought that if they were available they should be used, and in fact that you were being negligent if you didn't bring one at least in case of emergency. Others felt that part of the magic of wilderness travel was *not* being able to communicate with the outside world, and having to be self-reliant even when things when wrong. I saw this argument play out for many years in the backpacking world where I spent a lot of time, and I think a similar debate occurred in the mushing community.
In the context of this broader debate, when the ITC restricted the use of devices I didn't see that as a lack of concern about safety (or of bending to corporate will, who if anything I suspect would have loved to find a cell carrier to sponsor the race). I saw it as sticking at least temporarily with the traditionalists, who worried that the old independent spirit of the Iditarod would be eroded if the mushers could call home from every checkpoint. I'm not sure I can find specific quotes, but my recollection is that at least at the beginning, many of the mushers were on board with this approach. And to be fair - I do think that there is a legitimate concern (in both the backpacking and mushing worlds) that newcomers to the sport who are used to our modern digital world may rely too heavily on these devices, and then be unprepared for what happens when the battery dies in the cold or there's no service in the middle of nowhere.
Anyway, my personal take is that the devices are here to stay, and so we should focus on figuring out how to use them fairly and safely, and not on trying to artificially keep them out of the wilderness. And I'd certainly agree that (not for the first time) the ITC was slow to think through the repercussions and ended up caught flat-footed on more than one occasion. If they had been more proactive they could have been a leader in establishing guidelines for appropriate device use; they absolutely failed to recognize and make use of that opportunity. But I'm not sure it's fair to say that they were ignoring safety or acting against musher interests when I suspect they were at least initially acting to defend musher preferences against encroaching civilization.