When it comes to bank checking, there is a growing majority of consumers that seems to think these services should be free by some inherent right.

They are wrong.

It is only in recent years that “free” checking has really come onto the scene. Minimum account balances, per-check processing charges and account maintenance fees have been around forever – and consumers never complained, at least not as loudly as today.

And even “free” services have always come with strings attached. A certain number of direct deposits had to be recorded each month, or paper statements had to be given up. Checks themselves needed to be ordered and paid for.

In large measure, it was the advent and growth of debit payment processes that began in the mid-1990s and exploded over the past decade that allowed for these free services in the first place. Banks raked in tens of billions of dollars in retail-driven debit fees over the past decade.

Consider Bank of America. Say what you will about this nation’s largest bank, but there is no denying that BofA is simply everywhere.

For all the tens of billions of dollars brought in through debit fees, untold billions were also sent right back out, spent on sprucing up and installing new ATMs, buying smaller competitors to increase branch networks and enhancing payment infrastructure to make debit payments faster and easier.

In better times, this convenience was lauded as BofA’s greatest strength. But when the fee-income cash cow was slaughtered as a sacrifice to populism and with a nod to the small business lobby, that convenience became harder to maintain. BofA’s greatest strength became one of its biggest liabilities.

So it went back to the future, and will start to charge $5 per month for the kinds of expensive services previously subsidized by retailers, and before them, consumers themselves.

It all brings us to an interesting tipping point today. BofA’s smaller competitors are rightly using their still-free products as lures to attract angry customers. Online petitions, bank switch days and en masse account closures are being encouraged by any number of competing interests.

And good for them. But be warned, that sword has two edges – for financial institutions and consumers alike.

Accustomed to an ATM on every street corner, what happens when consumers are now increasingly forced to use out-of-network machines? Use one of those a handful of times per month, with a $2 or $3 surcharge added each time, and that $5 monthly fee from BofA doesn’t look so bad anymore.

Likewise, for banks desperate to keep their new customers happy and fulfill their “free” promises, their own maintenance costs will also keep rising. It costs money to build new ATMs. As an alternative, perhaps they re-imburse out-of-network ATM fees. But as more customers use more out-of-network ATMs, those re-imbursement costs rise.

Sooner or later, those free services necessarily become fee services. And/or the smaller bank gets swallowed by a larger bank, and customers are right back where they started. That’s how it works. Period.

Look, we understand consumer anger. We’re consumers ourselves, after all.

But our anger isn’t focused at those institutions forced to find ways to pay for what has become an essential service. No, our anger is directed at the seemingly needless regulations that begot this mess in the first place.

Populism can be political gold. But in its very knee-jerk nature, it can often harm those it purports to help. In the name of consumer and small business protection, the Durbin Amendment went and kicked consumers right where it hurts the most – their wallets.

Because so many things for consumers these days are so bad, maybe we’ve forgotten just how good it was. The retail debit fee system really wasn’t broken. It helped pay for a lot of consumer progress.

But we went and “fixed” it anyway. And look where it got us.