Country dwellers are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting a decent job, according to a report from IBM.

City folk get all the best breaks and the best salaries -

and it is all down to a lack of technology.

Telecommuting and online shopping were meant to even out the digital divide. In fact, both have become urban phenomena, supporting affluent high-flyers in new economy jobs while rural people are increasingly excluded.

Home-working was seen by many as a great way to improve the office worker's quality of life. Unfortunately, broadband, the technology that could make home-working possible, is available only in selected locations - few of them rural.

In recent months, experts have identified a "mobile underclass" of people in rural or remote areas who are excluded from new economy jobs and services by a lack of digital mobility - the wherewithal to access the digital services town dwellers take for granted.

People have been asking for ages if mobile technologies can do anything to help alleviate some of the problems of declining rural economies and what supporting infrastructure and policies should be put in place and by whom.

The "by whom" bit is very important. If there is no advantage to be gained, there is no reason why a commercial organisation would want to shell out huge amounts of cash to provide a rural service.

IBM's report recommends the public sector has to be the driving force. Market forces in rural areas are not sufficiently powerful to entice a service provider to invest in the infrastructure.

Given the Government's commitment to turn the UK into a digital nation, it would seem appropriate the public sector should pick up the tab.

But we all know public money is scarcer than hens'

teeth so how will this message be received by our hardpressed county councils?

In early 2000, the Government launched its work/life balance campaign, tapping in to mounting concerns about the increase in working hours, growing job insecurity and increased competition.

The problems were being felt through all areas of work, with women designers, writers and actresses finding difficulties balancing the demands of work and home.

All these factors, and the response required from the workforce to combat them, were seen to be having a damaging effect on our home and community life and our ability to function as friends, parents, citizens and workers.

A study by the Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick found high levels of support for work/life balance policies among both employers and employees.

Evidence of good practice was much more mixed.

About ten per cent of employees worked 60 hours a week or more, with very long hours being particularly common among male professional and managerial staff, but workplaces seemed to be responding slowly.

More than 60 per cent allowed at least some staff to vary their hours but only minority offered real flexible working arrangements such as term-time contacts or compressed hours.

There was demand for greater flexibility from staff, particularly for the chance to occasionally work from home.

About 20 per cent of those surveyed said they worked from home at least occasionally but, of those who never worked from home, a third wanted to.

Figures like these suggest it is high time to make homeworking more than a possibility and I am concerned living in the country might mean people are "technologically unemployable". What do you think?