Not exactly. The internet has evolved under a set of rules that allowed it grow into a new fundamental requirement of modern life.
But the kinds of things Net Neutrality protects were de facto assumptions, when the net started out, because the necessary technology and industries didn't exist for doing otherwise.
It's like you're saying that a village with farmers and horse-drawn carts shouldn't need any new laws or regulations as it grows into a city with cars, and then a mega-city with interstate highways, bridges, tunnels, etc.
When new rules are added to a system that has been working just fine under its existing rules (and there are existing rules),
It's not woking fine when my ISP decides they want to block my torrents. And, in the years leading up to its existence, the main thing that's kept ISPs from charging upstream entities is probably the threat of something like Net Neutrality. But by explicitly rescinding NN, what the government is basically doing is removing that threat and giving a green light for ISPs to misbehave as badly as they want to.
then somebody is probably paying a lot of money to get these rules added.
Government exists as a way for the people to collectively decide & implement rules that are best for society. In a capitalist system, it needs to be the ultimate check on the market, which would otherwise turn from serving the public to feeding off them. The point of capitalism is to harness the power of greed for the public good. But if you remove the reigns, then it just becomes a feeding frenzy with the average citizen at the bottom of the food chain.
If you think it's all for the good of humanity and nobody's got any profit to make as a result of changing how it works, then we are just living in two different worlds.
Markets always adapt. Someone often stands to benefit from just about any change in equilibrium, but that doesn't mean the change itself is necessarily a corrupt or a bad one. The best way to get good rules, regulations, and laws from government is to promote transparency and protect them from the influence of the legalized form of bribery known as campaign finance.
Also, the idea of having bureaucrats involved in crafting and enforcing regulations is another tool for insulating government from manipulations by market players. I think this is why so many free market fundamentalists rail against "un-elected bureaucrats". They're upset by the limits of their abilities to manipulate them to the same extent they've evolved to manipulate elected officials.
A lot of people succumb to the terminal cynicism you're channeling. "Government is the problem." Well, when government is the only tool we have to control these mega-corporations, giving up on the potential of government to act in the interests of the people is pretty much the worst thing you can do.