It would have to be negative, as in an up front cost to the consumer.

Banks need to make money to cover operating costs at the very least. It's not that people don't accept 0% interest on deposits, it's that consumers would have to pay money to a bank to keep it operating with no risk.

Take that situation and then introduce a new bank that makes loans and therefore can pay depositors x% in interest on their deposits. If enough people decide that's a better deal than paying for total security, they'll take it.

The entire point of a low FDIC policy is to keep the small players safe while forcing the large players to make prudent decisions with their capital. Bailouts introduce moral hazard that says no big players need to scrutinize the risk adjusted returns they're getting. It's free money to those with money whole everyone else pays for it.

I mean, my Chase checking account is still only paying 0.01% interest. Many many people seem to be ok with ~0% interest on their day-to-day cash needs.