>>I think the actual converting factor is 1028, not 1000. I could be wrong though.
>
>Allowing that you mean 1024, I believe that's covered.
>
>The "K" implies 1024. Though possibly it should be 2048Kbps. Somehow doesn't seem right to me though.

The standard for data transfer is bps, kbps, etc., where kilo means exactly 1000, etc., unlike the standard for hard disks.

>Not sure if the broadband marketing works like hard disk marketing.
>Hard disks advertise 160gig, which for mine turns out to be 159,989,886,776 bytes (formatted). I expected it to be 160 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024.

Although the standard for hard disks is "kilo of 1024", etc., hard disk manufacturers dishonestly use kilos of 1000.

Leading computer magazines can tell you that a certain hard disk has (for instance) 180 GB, and that the "formatted capacity" is so-and-so-much, when actually formatting has nothing to do with it; the difference being due, in its entirety, to the different interpretations of "GB" (more than 7% difference, in this case).