>If hypothetically every metaphorical YouTube should close for business because perhaps governments shut down ad funding, or if YouTube starts charging money, is my prerogative of speech in peril?
No because it's not related to your specific content.
Even if you were to make the argument that X content doesn't make money and costs too much, if someone pulls the trigger without giving you recourse to resolve issues, then it is violation of free speech.
In your example, if AT&T tells you that you must pay more money to say certain topics, then it's a violation.
If it costs money, it costs money, nothing wrong with that. The issue is intent.
The counterpoint to this is that putting in a barrier that only some people can pass can work as censorship. If you raise the price very high, then only people with lots of money can use it. This means all (or at the vast majority of) of the content is that which is desirable by the very rich. So by raising the price to a high level you are censoring content that is of interest to the poor but not the rich.
This is actually exactly how big media/big politics operates.
Why does specificity of intent matter? If the government on mere whim decided that I can't use the phone, is that somehow not a violation of free speech? In this scenario, is it any less of a violation just because the government acted on a whim as opposed to any specific intent to manipulate conversation?
No because it's not related to your specific content.
Even if you were to make the argument that X content doesn't make money and costs too much, if someone pulls the trigger without giving you recourse to resolve issues, then it is violation of free speech.
In your example, if AT&T tells you that you must pay more money to say certain topics, then it's a violation.
If it costs money, it costs money, nothing wrong with that. The issue is intent.