Well, there is one upside to ATM surcharges: They've given people something to talk about. And Bankrate.com readers have had plenty to say on the subject. A recent story on a decision by Bank of America and Wells Fargo to cut off service to non-customers in Santa Monica and San Francisco after those cities voted to outlaw the charges apparently hit a nerve for many readers.

Below, we offer a few of their comments.

• I think we should start a nation-wide movement against the banking industry. Use tellers. There may be fees involved, but if the banks are going to charge ATM fees, then a fee is a fee. But the cost for the bank to have tellers issue the same amount of cash as an ATM would have to be greater. Imagine the labor issues if one Monday morning, the line to use the teller was 50-60 people long. Banks already wield too much power in the US. Now in Santa Monica they have shown that they will try to bully the public. Well, let's all meet the Tellers!!!! My experience shows they are polite, helpful and willing to serve.

• Yeah that's the answer. I'll wait in line for 2 hours to avoid paying the extra $1-$3. Stop being so cheap and realize that it takes money to run these machines.

• If you met some of the tellers I have, you'd have a new appreciation for the ATMs

• This is a convenience. The customer has the ability to say no to this convenience and vote with their purchase powers until the banks give them what they want. If people are willing to pay they should pay. You start making sweeping changes without thinking about the bigger picture then you are mucking around with free enterprise

• The banks should be able to charge non-customers to use their ATMs, but they shouldn't charge their own customers to use other banks'ATM's.

• I live in Iowa. It's illegal in this state for ATM owners to charge surcharges for usage of the machine. Banks here do quite well without charging extra to non-customers for access to money. ATM machines have flourished despite the ban on fees. Surcharges should be illegal in every state.

• I do disagree with the amount of fees being charged, but just as a point of fact, banks in Iowa are not happy with this ban. Banks filed suit against the State banking officials and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that states cannot regulate banks. Iowa is currently appealing the ruling.

• Initiatives to ban bank ATM surcharging are nothing more than knee-jerk reactions to a perception that fees paid are not as valuable as the service received. Prior to ATMs, consumers were forced to make a trip to THEIR bank to cash a check for the weekly spending money. Credit cards were not as popular, and in some regions, checks were even difficult to negotiate. When we look back, we realize how inconvenient that was. And, as with every other commodity, there is a price to pay for that convenience: ATM networks are expensive to install, maintain and hold secure. And though the thought of paying anywhere from 50 cents to $2 or more for the convenience of "cash anywhere" can seem high as a percentage of the amount withdrawn, why the fuss over these fees? They are as natural a function of supply and demand as the price of scalped concert tickets, hot new cars for which people gladly pay more than sticker price, or even that $4 can of shaving cream that one buys at the nearby convenience store -- because it's convenient and you need or want it, and you don't have -- or won't make -- time to go where it's cheaper. The point is: One has a choice "Cash anywhere" is simply another classic example of choice. Let the free market settle itself naturally. It's the bedrock upon which our economy is built

• There are two ATM fees. One is the fee the ATM owner charges me. The other is the one my bank charges me if my bank does not own the ATM. My question is, does my bank charge me because the bank that owns the ATM charges my bank? In other words does the bank that owns the ATM charge me as well as my bank? Do they double bill?

• Yes, when you use an ATM that is not your bank's, you are charged a fee and then your bank is charged a "nominal" fee. That is why your bank charges you another fee -- partly to cover the fee they are charged, but mostly to further gouge the consumer.

• I think people are going about this all wrong. The problem is with the fee charged by the bank providing no service. We should not allow them to charge us for providing no service other than holding our money and using our money as investment capital to gain more interest than they give -- for which they already charge customers in the form of a monthly service charge.

• Way back when these ATM's were being installed, they were fully cost justified on the basis of the full-time teller positions they planned to eliminate. All the benefits, career paths, and associated overhead and paperwork were eliminated with this electronic improvement. The subsequent use of the debit card to reduce the cost (full time positions) of processing checks was planned to be icing on the cake. Now, they're getting really greedy. It's not enough to have a license from the Fed to print money (grant loans); it's not enough to pay a measly 2 1/2% to 5% on deposits and then get as much as 22% on the credit card loans they do make. No, now they want to take a bite out of every dollar transaction that passes through their hands. Well, I think it stinks. Don't worry; they're making plenty of money. Look at your city; wherever it is, the biggest buildings have the name of a bank on them.

• I believe that the city should have an ordinance that prevents the banks that only allow their customers to use their ATM's from having street access to the ATM's unless they can be used by everyone.

• I am amazed by the current concern about ATM fees and the amount of money it is going to cost both the taxpayer and the banks. Will common sense ever prevail? Yet, the obvious solution is not mentioned by either the press or the banks. If you don't want to pay the fees, don't use the ATMs!!! A large percentage of the San Francisco population feels as though it is improper for business to charge for a service. Then they abuse the democratic process and use it for their own selfish interests. Now, we tie up our judicial system and waste a large amount of the taxpayers' money in a legal battle that makes little, if any sense. Unfortunately, common sense isn't all that common on either side of the fence. If you don't want to pay for the service, don't use it.

• The government should stay out of free enterprise. I use the ATM at the bank where I have my bank account. I pay no fees. Why should government change this? If people are too stupid to go to their own bank, they should pay extra fees. Why should my bank be forced to subsidize other bank's customers?

•  There is only one real way to fight the fees. Change banks and don't use the damn ATM and make sure you tell the banking institution why you are about to take the action. That is what my wife and I did and over a period of several years took many friends with us. We are very pleased with our banking institution now.

• Join a Credit Union. The service is better, the fees are lower, and if you need a loan you get a better rate. If you feel that the cost of an ATM is excessive, don't use it. If enough people stopped, the price would come down. Legislation is never the answer. It creates more problems than it solves. The amount of your tax dollars spent passing new legislation and then fighting about it in court is more than you would have spent using the ATM every week for years.

• Society may be interested in abolishing the current banking system as we know it. They may be willing (just to knock the banking industry down a few notches) to return to an old system of a "CASH PAYROLL" and with that cash people would purchase a certified check to mail to their creditors. This may help bankers to remember their origin. A time when bank owners were out on the streets begging people to use their secured storage facility.

• As a retired CEO of a Credit Union, who helped perfect the ATM network for credit unions, Bank of America is bluffing. Every time a non-customer uses their ATM's they receive a fee from that customer's financial institution of as much as 90 cents. It will surprise me if they stop ATM service anywhere other than the small town of Santa Monica.

• I am disappointed in the I want everything for nothing attitude that is consuming our population. If I choose to buy a burger at McDonalds, does it mean that I am entitled to eat that burger at the restaurant of my choice or use another restaurant's bathroom facility at their expense? If you want convenience then bank where convenience is offered. Don't whine that a private business (not public facility like so many believe a bank must be) wants to charge you a fee for using their facility. Where does this free lunch attitude come from? Banks are entitled to make profits. That's why they and hundreds of thousand of other companies exist. It seems as though local, state and fed politicians are playing the no can lose game by jumping on a bandwagon that selfish people are crying for freebees they're not entitled to. Grow up people.
  
  
• I think we are looking in the wrong direction. Rather then penalize the bank that owns the ATM for charging the customer for using it, I don't think the customer's own bank should charge them the second charge for not using their ATM. Banks already charge a service fee on the accounts reflected by the debit cards and charge companies already charge enough in finance charges to more than make up the difference for their customers use of another company's machine.
  
  
• It's a big world of competition out there and banks need to learn, just like every other retailer, that their product is only as valuable as it is cost-worthy and convenient to the customer. Their only product is service, as the money belongs to the customer. If they cannot make that service, be it convenience or costliness, more responsive to their customers' needs then they will go elsewhere and they will loose in the long run. No matter how big of an institution they are, without the customer base to sustain them, they too will falter and fall.
  
  
• If your bank is charging you a fee to use an ATM that does not belong to them, then change banks. Not all banks charge the second fee. However, the ATM user's bank is being charged a fee to be a part of the ATM system. Do not expect to receive a service for free. Banks are a business. They do what they do to make a profit. Banks are not some sort of a government agency that does not understand profits.
  
  
• Once upon a time, ATM cards were the most convenient ways of accessing one's bank account. But now, with double-fee-dipping, and just the pure annoyance of having to hunt down YOUR bank (and if you're out of your bank's area, you're forced to hand over your hard-earned cash to some other bank just to access your own money), I've changed to a bank that offers a new level of convenience: the Visa-linked debit card- a check card that you can use wherever Visa cards are. Now, I don't care if foreign banks want to rip more cash out of my hands, because I'm no longer in a position where I am forced to use them. Wherever they take credit, I use my card. And my life has attained a new level of ease. So, those "bank fee" thieves can kiss my ass, because I'm never going to give my money away to them ever again.
  
  
• Customers should resist by withdrawing only from their bank and if their bank does not provide machines strategically, then join another bank. The alternative is -- join the credit
  union, put your money in the credit union and then you know you will be charged a fee, but only once.
  
  
• The fees charged by banks for the use of ATM's are for non-customers. Let me repeat myself, NON-customers. Are there any service industries that provide the same service to customers and non-customers alike and not charge a fee to the non-customer? ATM's are not free to banks. They are expensive to purchase and maintain and the very fact that non-customers are allowed to use the machine is remarkable. If banning ATM fees is good for the consumer, why not ban banks from charging interest on loans? Wouldn't that save consumers even more money?
  
  
• It's my choice to use my own bank's ATM or to pay for the convenience of using another bank's ATMs. Our economy is driven in part by fees being paid for services, and banks are a SERVICE industry.
  
  
• Another point in support of the banks is that those ATMs cost money, servicing them costs money, providing the cash costs money and maintaining the machines and their networks costs money.
  
  
• Frankly, I'd rather that banks continue to charge non-customers for ATM use -- otherwise when traveling out of state, my ATM card will become totally worthless! When I'm out of my home state, you bet there have been times when I was thrilled to pay $1.50 to get out a few hundred dollars!
  
  
• Simple economic theory tells us that if you place a ceiling on the price of a good or service, it is likely to cause a shortage. This is because a business will be less motivated to produce that good or service if its price is artificially held low. That is why if ATM fees are banned, banks will most likely reduce the number of ATM's they have and/or restrict access to them. Government has no business legislating ATM fees. The free market system should set the price of ATM fees. After all nobody forces you to use a particular ATM. If you choose to use an ATM that charges a fee then that's your decision. If governments decide to ban fees then there will definitely be a reduction in the number of ATMs. In effect government would be reducing the choices consumers have. Maybe governments and so-called 'consumer advocates' would like to see taxes raised to pay for 'public' ATMs.
  
  
• I don't have a problem with the transaction fee at the ATM machine. Those machines do cost money. I do have a problem for the bank to also charge me for an ATM withdrawal. Some banks are charging $2.00 or more for each transaction and they don't own the machine. I know it may cost a few cents for the electronic transfer of funds but it is only a few cents. If anything should be banned it should be the back end fees you are paying for using a non-bank ATM.
  
  
• Most banks charge you if you use somebody else's ATM, and a portion of that fee goes to the ATMs institution, then the originating ATMs bank also charges you. If your bank does so, stop using the ATM and use tellers whenever possible. Since their cost savings by your using ATMs instead of tellers far outweighs these surcharges, doing so would strike at what they care about most -- their money. Does anyone remember when banks suggested they would charge for you to use a teller to increase ATM usage and reduce cost???
  
  
• At the time of introduction ATM's were labeled as a cost cutting measure for the banks. Once they had been established as a convenience for many consumers they have become a pure profit center for the banking industry. If they incur costs they should provide these foreign ATM's at cost. Charging you to get YOUR money back is ridiculous. Be wary of debit cards. They are being touted the same way ATM's were years ago. They save banks the costs of checks and are viewed as an added convenience for consumers. How soon until they charge for their usage? For those that care, the only method is to search for a bank with lower ATM fees. I agree with a previous poster the fee your own bank charges to use a foreign ATM is the first one that you should try to eliminate.
  
  
• To all those who claim ATMs are not needed: I hope you get stranded in a strange town, at night, with little cash and a screaming baby without using an ATM. The ATM is the middle-to-poverty class's bank. Removing it will create a long period of trouble. Taxing it is not only illegal by principle, but unfair.
  
  
• If you are stranded in a strange town at night with a screaming baby and need cash, it would seem to me that $2-$4 is not a very high price to pay. I'll bet you have a car phone for emergencies. I'll also bet that you pay much more for it than you do ATM fees. Banks are in business to make a profit, not for non-customers to use their customers' cash.
  
  
• There are two steps toward avoiding or at least minimizing ATM fees:
  1) Get an account with a credit union. I have been extremely happy with my CU; they have one CU-owned ATM, but they are a part of the Presto! network. I live in Florida, and can withdraw cash at any Publix supermarket free of charge. The ONE time in the past two years I have paid an ATM fee was when I found myself short of cash on a business trip in Virginia, and had to use a non-Presto! ATM.
  2) Set a BUDGET! Give yourself x amount of dollars for "impulse" purchases and STICK TO IT. 99 percent of the time, you won't have to run to an ATM for another $20. Three years ago, before I smartened up financially, my statement would be a mile-long list of ATM withdrawals, with a hefty list of ATM fees to boot. Now, I use an ATM perhaps a couple of times a year, because I plan so as not to overspend my available cash.
  The ATM fees rank up there with late fees and other bank surcharges: those who are not careful with their finances are hit hardest.
  
  
• I use USAA Federal Savings Bank in San Antonio, though I live in Atlanta. They actually rebate any ATM surcharge I pay to another bank up to $15 a month (they also charge no fees on my accounts and even pay interest on my checking, regardless of my balance). My wife, on the other hand, really appreciates the convenience of being able to make a deposit in person if she needs to, though she never does. She used to bank with a small, local bank, called The Bank of North Georgia, with only a few ATMs. She got so fed up with having to pay large surcharges to large banks to use their ATMs that she finally switched to one of them, Wachovia. Her new bank is far less friendly and charges her more fees than her old local bank. To me that is anti-competitive. When a large bank is able to punish customers of a bank that gives them better service at a lower cost, something is wrong. It is time for government to step in and ensure some limit on the big banks' power. If Congress started talking about vertically disintegrating ATM operations and ownership from the banks, I think you would very quickly see the bank ATM surcharges drop like a rock.
  
  
• And whom do you think would end up paying for those "disintegrated" entities that run ATMs separately from banks? I submit that unless those separate entities can run ATM networks as efficiently as banks, you'll see one of two things: Even higher surcharges (more entities actually involved, because you simply can't remove the financial institution fully from the picture), or fewer machines altogether. I say leave well enough alone. I just can't understand why folks don't understand simple supply and demand. If you don't want to pay a fee, use your own bank. If that's inconvenient, switch banks. The price of a surcharge is irrelevant, be it 50 cents or $10. As long as there exists venues for free withdrawals, the consumer has a choice. But the prevailing mentality that one should be entitled to use another bank's (or non-bank owner's, for that matter) ATMs for cheap or, better yet, free, is absolutely absurd. With the exception of true monopolies, there's just no such thing as "too profitable." But to infer or state that one's entitled to certain lower fees is ridiculous. Let's just choose the venue that, at the moment of need, provides the best value received for the price paid -- whatever the price. No demand? Price falls. If we vote with our feet rather than with legislation, we're all better off. The unfortunate problem is that there are too many hypocrites out there that continually cry "Poor me!" and want a free lunch.