I'm not someone who believes the government solves all problems, but it does have its place. In many situations, removing the government doesn't make people work harder, but just makes big companies and the wealthy take advantage of people more. Less regulations can lead to more unsafe products, dirtier air/water (as they dump their waste where ever they feel like it), or worse employee benefits/pay/working conditions.
In the case of Network Neutrality, I currently have only one option for wired, high speed Internet: Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable). If Spectrum, tomorrow, announced that I needed to pay $5 extra a month for access to Netflix, I'd have three options: 1) pay up, 2) don't pay up, don't watch Netflix, but keep my Internet service, or 3) cancel Spectrum and not have home Internet. Given that 3 isn't an option and that there is a lot that I, my wife, and my kids watch on Netflix, we'd be pressured to pay the extra money. Since there is no competition, voting with my wallet isn't an option. Taking them to court also isn't likely to work - they have a team of lawyers that could tangle me up in litigation until I went bankrupt.
In this example, the only option for me is for the government to step in. The government is (at least theoretically) answerable to me and other voters while corporations - especially monopolies - aren't beholden to do anything for me beyond take my money every month. If Spectrum were to enact a $5 Netflix Access Fee in my example, the FCC (or another government agency) could step in and say "You're not allowed to do this." Spectrum can't just laugh off the Federal Government and would be forced to change business practices.*
* Theoretically speaking. Practically speaking, what companies seem to do is change just enough to stay within the law and then pour money into lobbying the government to walk back the protections in the name of "helping businesses grow." Dealing with the massive corporate lobbying problem is another topic entirely.