The Gigatown Competition (2013-2015) was a joint initiative between the telecommunications company Chorus and the New Zealand government to award a New Zealand town ‘the fastest internet in the Southern Hemisphere’ through a social media competition. Towns accrued points based on the volume of social media content related to the Competition and the benefits of ultra-fast broadband (UFB). I undertake a discourse analysis of select promotional materials and participation in the Competition to show how support for UFB as a necessary infrastructure for the New Zealand economy was achieved. I argue the Gigatown initiative mobilises a form of community participation in information and communications technologies (ICT) infrastructure premised on urban centres and towns competing against one another for their future viability. The success of the Competition and enthusiastic participation of towns in South Island can be contextualised by the governing and economic rationalities of urban austerity.
AichholzerGSchmutzerR (2001) The Digital Divide in Austria. Vienna: Institute of Technology Assessment.
2.
AshJKitchinRLeszczynskiA (2015) Digital turn, digital geography? The programmable city. Working Paper no. 17. Available at: http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/7234 (accessed 31 January 2018).
3.
BanksM (2009) Fit and working again? The instrumental leisure of the ‘creative class’. Environment and Planning A41: 668–681.
4.
CaragliuADel BoCNijkampP (2011) Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology18(2): 65–82.
5.
ChenWWellmanB (2005) Charting digital divides: comparing socioeconomic, gender, life stage and rural–urban internet access and use in five countries. In: DuttonWHKahinBO’CallaghanRet al. (eds) Transforming Enterprise: The Economic and Social Implications of Information Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 467–498.
6.
ChinnMDFairlieRW (2007) The determinants of the global digital divide: a cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers59(1): 16–44.
CompaineBM (2001) Re-examining the digital divide. In: CompaineBMGreensteinS (eds) Communications Policy in Transition: The Internet and beyond. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 321–348.
CooperJ (2006) The digital divide: the special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning22(5): 320–334.
20.
CooperJWeaverKD (2003) Gender and Computers: Understanding the Digital Divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
CrothersCSmithPUralePWBet al. (2016) The Internet in New Zealand 2015. Auckland, New Zealand: Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication, Auckland University of Technology.
22.
Department for Trade and Industry (2000) Closing the Digital Divide: Information and Communications Technologies in Deprived Areas. London: Department for Trade and Industry.
DiMaggioPJHargittaiE (2001) From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality’: studying internet use as penetration increases. Working Paper Series no. 15. Princeton, NJ: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. Available at: https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP15%20-%20DiMaggio%2BHargittai.pdf (accessed 11 February 2016).
25.
DobranskyKHargittaiE (2006) The disability divide in internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society9(3): 313–334.
FairlieRWLondonRARosnerRet al. (2006) Crossing the Divide: Immigrant Youth and Digital Disparity in California. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Justice, Tolerance, and Community University of California, Santa Cruz.
28.
FloridaR (2005) Cities and the Creative Class. London: Routledge.
29.
FoucaultM (1981) The order of discourse. In: YoungR (ed.) Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 48–78.
30.
FoucaultM (1991) Governmentality. In: BurchellGGordonCMillerP (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–104.
GunkelDJ (2003) Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society5(4): 499–522.
33.
HallS (1997) The work of representation. In: HallS (ed.) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage, pp. 15–64.
34.
HoarPHopeW (2002) The internet, the public sphere and the digital divide in New Zealand. Journal of International Communication8(2): 64–88.
35.
HoffmanDLNovakTPSchlosserAE (2001) The evolution of the digital divide: examining the relationship of race to internet access and usage over time. In: CompaineBM (ed.) The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 47–98.
Koopman -BoydenPGReidSL (2009) Internet/email usage and well-being Among 65–84 year olds in New Zealand: policy implications. Educational Gerontology35(11): 990–1007.
45.
LiffSShepherdAWajcmanJet al. (2004) An evolving gender digital divide? OII Internet Issue Brief no. 2, 1July. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1308492 (accessed 11 February 2016).
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (1995) Falling through the Net: A Survey of the ‘Have-nots’ in Rural and Urban America. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html (accessed 11 February 2016).
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (1999) Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html (accessed 11 February 2016).
58.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (2000) Falling through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn00/contents00.html (accessed 11 February 2016).
59.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (2002) A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding Their Use of the Internet. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/dn/anationonline2.pdf (accessed 11 February 2016).
60.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2001) Understanding the digital divide. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/1888451.pdf (accessed 11 February 2016).
PriegerJEHuW-M (2008) The broadband digital divide and the nexus of race, competition, and quality. Information Economics and Policy20(2): 150–167.
64.
Randell-MoonH (Forthcoming) Digital Infrastructure, Ultra-Fast Broadband, and Citizenship in the Gigatown Competition in the South Island. Aotearoa, New Zealand.
65.
SelwynN (2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society6(3): 341–362.
66.
ShelleyMThraneLShulmanSet al. (2004) Digital citizenship: parameters of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review22(2): 256–269.
67.
SoarJSwindellRTsangP (eds) (2011) Intelligent Technologies for Bridging the Grey Digital Divide. New York: Information Science Reference.
TippetR (2015) Social media as surveillance: digital spaces and the societies of control. Working Paper Series no. 1. Available at: http://www.otago.ac.nz/mfco/otago107622.pdf (accessed 25 March 2018).
72.
Van DijkJHackerK (2003) The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society19(4): 315–326.
73.
Venture Southland (2013) Let’s make Invercargill the most connected city in the southern hemisphere, 5December. Available at: http://venturesouthland.co.nz (accessed 3 September 2015).
