I've always assumed that Google ads subsidises everything else at Google. So my concern with a split would be YouTube increasing price or less investment in the service.
Youtube just had the revenue of $8.92 billion where the total was $88.27 billion. Not a small number. Is there any information how much is profit from that Youtube part?
I have a hard time imagining that youtube is subsidized given the ridiculous number of obnoxious ads you're forced to watch and the steep price of removing them. Surely if they were subsidized this wouldn't be worth the cost of ruining their product.
What's ironic about it? YouTube premium removes ads that YouTube adds to videos. Those sponsor ads in the videos are put there by the content creator who made the video.
And what would be the reason for this subsidy? Do they think YouTube is going to keep growing and it's worth waiting for them to become somehow more popular? Would it be catastrophic for Alphabet if other large players entered YouTube's market?
And why would losing a subsidy mean increasing prices? As far as I can tell consumers think YouTube's offerings are overpriced as is and they could probably increase profit by lowering them, especially if it's not their parent's add subsidiary they'd be cannibalising.
There are options for you, like Floatplane and Nebula. The problem is universal - their curated content has limited appeal. The YouTube model is more attractive to people, so more people upload content to a larger audience. I have no confidence that a paid-only platform could reach 1/100th of the traffic YouTube gets in a similar timespan.
As a customer you really just have to ask yourself what you're willing to give up when paying for a YouTube analog. Content creators aren't going to engage in a mass exodus unless they're convinced their audience will follow them to other platforms.